On 07/05/11 23:22, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Pete Wyckoff<pw@xxxxxxxx> writes:
luke@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 06 May 2011 06:25 +0100:
On 06/05/11 06:07, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Luke Diamand<luke@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
This is version 3 of my patch.
<snip>
So the only thing lacking at this point is the commit log message?
I am not sure if the "actual user is luke" message you give when (and only
when) preserveUser is used is a good "reminder". Isn't it that the user
needs reminder when the user should have used but forgot to use this
option, not the other way around like your patch does?
I put that in so that when I'm at the point where I'm about to submit to
Perforce I know that git-p4 hasn't forgotten that it's going to patch up
the user name, and hasn't got it horribly wrong.
i.e. to reassure me it's not about to mess up Perforce.
I suspect that the message would show an unexpected name only when the new
codepath is buggy or the P4 changes the code is interacting are formatted
in ways that the new codepath is not expecting (well, they amount to the
same thing after all, no?),
Exactly.
(The submit template does have a userid field in it, but this is always
*your* userid, which I thought might be a bit confusing. Hence the message).
and having such a message may prevent users
from submitting the changeset under an incorrect name, but at that point
what recourse do they have?
Apart from not submitting the changelist, none.
It looks to me that the message is not helping the users, even though it
may help as a debugging aid for git-p4 developers.
Should I just remove it?
I guess it only adds a small amount of information which could be
explained in the instructions.
Regards!
Luke
--
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