Re: [PATCH] comments: display username and name instead of only username
On 04/21/2015 08:23 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com wrote: On 04/20/2015 06:51 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: I would go for: - pull request author: full name (username) - pull request reviewers: full name (username) - pull request commit overview: username only For changeset/changelog displaying, I'm not fully sure: suppose someone uses the same e-mail to commit under two different display names, for example 'John Doe' and 'John Doe (scripted)'. In this case, one would probably expect the name from the commit header to appear in the changeset/changelog details. But the correlation to the actual user as known in Kallithea is also useful, so we should show that too, at least in the changeset details. In case both the name in the commit header, and the name known to Kallithea is the same, there would be some duplication if we show both, though. Maybe we should show both but clearly indicate that one is coming from the commit header and the other (if available) is the detail from Kallithea. Currently we always use the user entry and show the username if the email address is known (and we allow the system to email the user - we will never spam users / email addresses that are unknown to the system). I think that is fine. If the user wants to commit under different names, he should use different email addresses. While I understand your reasoning, it doesn't work in a corporate environment where you have only one e-mail address and no easy way to create aliases. I'm not saying that e-mail address should no longer be unique in Kallithea. I'm just saying that if a user commits with a name different than the name in Kallithea (under the same e-mail address) we should not ignore that or hide it in Kallithea. I will put it the other way around: If you have a corporate environment where the users have different roles that must be kept separate then it makes totally sense to require that the users have several email addresses. It is not a good idea to encode that semantics in the more free form username part of the email field. Anyway: Most email servers allows specifying a custom part of the email address - such as patrickdepinguin+he...@gmail.com . That can perhaps also be used in your case to separate roles? I often see a lot of different spellings of the users names in our system but their email is usually written correctly. In our case, I just want to see the normalized name based on the email address. /Mads ___ kallithea-general mailing list kallithea-general@sfconservancy.org http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
Re: [PATCH] comments: display username and name instead of only username
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com wrote: On 04/20/2015 06:51 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com wrote: On 04/19/2015 05:57 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: I guess this is a place where a global configuration could make sense. :-( It would be nice to show everything everywhere but especially in the tables with commits that is not an option. Currently: - pull request author: username (full name) - pull request reviewers: full name - pull request commit overview: username only - repo summary/changelog: username if user found, else name from commit header - changeset detail: username (full name) if user found, else name from commit header (I haven't checked all other places yet, like notifications...) Thanks - a review for consistency has value ... even more so if we can establish guidelines for maintaining that consistency. I would go for: - pull request author: full name (username) - pull request reviewers: full name (username) - pull request commit overview: username only For changeset/changelog displaying, I'm not fully sure: suppose someone uses the same e-mail to commit under two different display names, for example 'John Doe' and 'John Doe (scripted)'. In this case, one would probably expect the name from the commit header to appear in the changeset/changelog details. But the correlation to the actual user as known in Kallithea is also useful, so we should show that too, at least in the changeset details. In case both the name in the commit header, and the name known to Kallithea is the same, there would be some duplication if we show both, though. Maybe we should show both but clearly indicate that one is coming from the commit header and the other (if available) is the detail from Kallithea. Currently we always use the user entry and show the username if the email address is known (and we allow the system to email the user - we will never spam users / email addresses that are unknown to the system). I think that is fine. If the user wants to commit under different names, he should use different email addresses. While I understand your reasoning, it doesn't work in a corporate environment where you have only one e-mail address and no easy way to create aliases. I'm not saying that e-mail address should no longer be unique in Kallithea. I'm just saying that if a user commits with a name different than the name in Kallithea (under the same e-mail address) we should not ignore that or hide it in Kallithea. So then we'd have: - repo summary/changelog: name from commit header - changeset detail: both name from commit header as full name (username). For other places that I did not identify above, 'full name (username)' would be preferred, unless if there is limited space in which case username could be shown alone. What do you think of that? Looks fine ... except that I like that we always use the user entry if the email address is known and only fall back to the parsed full name if the parsed email address is unknown. Somewhat related: the username and email address will often have a trivial mapping. I would like to get rid usernames and just use email addresses - also for login, perhaps with a config option for a default @domainname that always should be stripped. I'm not really opposed to that, but it does mean more typing for the typical user. In which cases? We have completion for @annotation and reviewers ... and the typical user will use a domain that will the default for the system and thus can be left out. I was thinking of @annotation (wasn't aware that it had autocomplete) and login. But it's a non-issue, really. Another thing is the confusion that comes from having separate first name and last name fields. Cultures put given name and family name in different order ... and sometimes people compensate for that in firstname/lastname, sometimes they don't. I thus prefer to have a full name field with the preferred spelling of the whole name and something like a nick name or common name with the name the person usually goes by. (In addition to that, there might be a need for having both the real name and the name transcribed to a different culture.) This ends up as a completely different problem but it might indicate that it could be relevant to have some kind of configurable template for naming ... or a couple of templates for short and long name. I was planning to touch upon that subject in my previous reply, but left it out because I thought it would lead us too far :) Anyway, I think we should keep external authentication databases into account: we should be able to map data from such databases into the scheme we propose. Our LDAP database does have a separate firstname, lastname, a full name and a common name, so this would be mappable on your proposal. Note that the 'common name'
Re: [PATCH] comments: display username and name instead of only username
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com wrote: On 04/18/2015 04:12 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: # HG changeset patch # User Thomas De Schampheleire thomas.de.schamphele...@gmail.com # Date 1429285875 -7200 # Fri Apr 17 17:51:15 2015 +0200 # Node ID a7cc66bf51ec89134cb7b02aca044bb74a56f768 # Parent e721e300d713a00747e6c519a98b38ef931b0f40 comments: display username and name instead of only username The full name is more significant to many people than a username. That is probably very reasonable. I will review in more details later. It would be an even more compelling argument if we could argue that it also is making the UI more consistent. I guess we should have some guidelines and/or macros ... Yes, agreed. My opinion is that a username is typically not relevant to other developers, while the full name is. People are not trained to remember each other's username. The username is only needed for @mentions, and could be useful when adding reviewers in a pull request. On the other hand, one could be concerned about two different users with the same name, for example Marc Johnson. With this in mind, additionally showing the username would differentiate between them. Originally my preference would have been to only show the full name except in some cases, but it may be more consistent (and fix the ambiguity for two people with the same name) to always show the name as: Full Name (username) What do you think? Thanks, Thomas ___ kallithea-general mailing list kallithea-general@sfconservancy.org http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
[PATCH] comments: display username and name instead of only username
# HG changeset patch
# User Thomas De Schampheleire thomas.de.schamphele...@gmail.com
# Date 1429285875 -7200
# Fri Apr 17 17:51:15 2015 +0200
# Node ID a7cc66bf51ec89134cb7b02aca044bb74a56f768
# Parent e721e300d713a00747e6c519a98b38ef931b0f40
comments: display username and name instead of only username
The full name is more significant to many people than a username.
diff --git a/kallithea/templates/changeset/changeset_file_comment.html
b/kallithea/templates/changeset/changeset_file_comment.html
--- a/kallithea/templates/changeset/changeset_file_comment.html
+++ b/kallithea/templates/changeset/changeset_file_comment.html
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
${h.gravatar(co.author.email, size=20)}
/div
div class=user
- ${co.author.username}
+ ${co.author.username_and_name}
/div
div class=date
${h.age(co.modified_at)}
___
kallithea-general mailing list
kallithea-general@sfconservancy.org
http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
