Ben Walton wrote:
> Excerpts from Jeff King's message of Fri Jun 12 10:48:57 -0400 2009:
>> [any reason not to keep this on the git list?]
>
> ...no, I just forget to set the CC.
>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:36:46AM -0400, Ben Walton wrote:
>>
>>> I've aliased 'ci' to 'commit -s', and people either use the alias or
>>> are encouraged to add the -s (it is by convention only, after all).
>>> We've then setup the root shell such that $USER is leveraged to source
>>> in some personalized shell when su is used. This is where we set
>>> GIT_COMMITTER_* on a per-admin basis. People not doing that edit the
>>> SoB line while editing the commit message...this fails with 'ci -m'.
>> Makes sense. I have a similar setup where people could be identified by
>> the ssh keys they use to log in, but I have never gotten around to
>> setting up something automated.
>>
>> I suspect SoB may be more convenient than GIT_AUTHOR_* in your scenario
>> just because you can tweak the former in the editor, as you note (and it
>> sounds like it's possible to not have the other variables set up
>> properly in your setup).
>
> It is easier from that perspective, but since nothing is forcing the
> use of -s, we'd have the same compliance if we wanted to ask people to
> use --author (or set the proper environment).
>
>>> Actually, I'm still wavering on which I'd prefer. At this point,
>>> since git is still fairly new for us in this capacity, we're feeling
>>> our way through things. I went with COMMITTER instead of AUTHOR
>>> though since that tends to stand out more in `git log` (at least to my
>>> eyes). Since we're not a finger pointing group :), things like `git
>> I would argue that you should do the opposite. AUTHOR is really about
>> "who wrote this change" and COMMITTER is about "who put this change into
>> the repo". So to me, "Bob wrote the change, logged in as root@box2, and
>> committed" should be AUTHOR=Bob, COMMITTER=root@box2.
>
> Your described usage is more semantically correct. It may make sense
> for us to switch to AUTHOR, so that in the future we could pinpoint
> changes with less hassle. I'll be discussing this with my colleagues
> shortly.
We use a shared account for updating a specific git repository. I have
this bit of shell in the .bash_profile of that account to automatically
prompt and set GIT_AUTHOR_NAME and GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL when someone tries
"git commit':
_setup_git_ident ()
{
local userid
local ypentry
while read -p "Your Real Login ID (not \"$LOGNAME\")> " userid
do
ypentry=$(ypmatch "$userid" passwd) || continue
break
done
oldIFS=$IFS
IFS=:
set -- $ypentry
IFS=$oldIFS
GIT_AUTHOR_NAME=${GIT_AUTHOR_NAME:-"$5"}
GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=${GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL:-"$1@"$(dnsdomainname)}
export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
}
_run_git ()
{
if [ "x$1" = "xcommit" ] &&
[ -z "$GIT_AUTHOR_NAME" -o -z "$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL" ]
then
_setup_git_ident
fi
git "$@"
}
alias git=_run_git
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html