On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> On Sonntag, 17. Januar 2010, Jeff King wrote:
> > - if (!user_ident_explicitly_given) {
> > + if (user_ident_explicitly_given != IDENT_ALL_GIVEN) {
> > strbuf_addstr(&format, "\n Committer: ");
>
> Sorry for chiming in so late, but this new condition worries me a bit. On all
> of my machines I have the GECOS field filled in with "Johannes Sixt", i.e., I
> do not need user.name. But of course the automatically derived email address
> is nonsense, so I've set up only user.email. Now I would always this hint,
> wouldn't I? Do most others fill in GECOS in ways that are inappropriate for
> git?
Yes, you are correctly analyzing the situation. I don't personally have
a preference (even though my GECOS field is correct, it always seemed
sensible to me to just explicitly set user.name along with user.email.
But presumably a user who has set one is clueful enough to know whether
they need to set the other one, too).
I do, however, think the summary behavior should match the behavior for
the commit message template, which was actually changed in 91c38a21.
Either this patch should be applied, or the other behavior should be
tweaked as below:
diff --git a/builtin-commit.c b/builtin-commit.c
index d4eef6d..ec1415e 100644
--- a/builtin-commit.c
+++ b/builtin-commit.c
@@ -656,7 +656,7 @@ static int prepare_to_commit(const char *index_file, const char *prefix,
author_ident);
free(author_ident);
- if (user_ident_explicitly_given != IDENT_ALL_GIVEN)
+ if (!user_ident_explicitly_given)
fprintf(fp,
"%s"
"# Committer: %s\n",
--
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