Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 02:03:48PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> We could say something like >> >> if (!(user_ident_explicitly_given & IDENT_EMAIL_GIVEN)) >> >> and it probably is a safer change on platforms with GECOS available, but >> then wouldn't msysgit folks have to fork this code? > > I hadn't thought to be specific to "email must be given". That is, I had > assumed if you gave a name but not email, you would also be considered > competent enough to avoid the warning. But I really can't see anybody > doing that, so the semantics you suggest above are fine by me. It is fine if we keep insisting on getting both explicitly, but as you said, I think if we have an explicit user.email, it is much more likely that the user are happy with what we get from the GECOS than the user is unhappy with GECOS but hasn't learnt user.name configuration. Also if you have neither user.name nor user.email on your fresh box, the chance that GECOS gives us the name you desire is much much more likely than the chance the output from `whoami`@`hostname -f` happens to match your desired e-mail identity. I think checking MAIL only would probably be the best heuristics. -- 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