On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Khomoutov
<kostix+git@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 02:02:22AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
>> I'm working on a test machine. It mostly needs to be a clone of
>> upstream. On occasion it needs to test a particular commit.
>>
>> When I attempt to test a commit it produces:
>>
>> $ git cherry-pick eb3b27a6a543
>>
>> *** Please tell me who you are.
> [...]
>> This is a nameless test account, so there is no information to provide.
>>
>> How do I tell Git to ignore these checks?
> [...]
>> Well, they don't exist so there's nothing to set.
>>
>> The machine below its a CubieBoard used for testing. I remote into it
>> with test@. As a matter of policy, no check-ins occur on it. Other
>> than the password database and authroized_keys file, there is no
>> information on it to be lost or stolen.
>
> `git cherry-pick` wants to record a commit. A commit in Git always
> possess the information on "the committer" -- whoever recorded the
> commit (it might be distinct from the commit author, as is the case with
> cherry-picking). There's no way to not set the committer.
>
> I envision two ways to get around this situation:
>
> 1) Patch the ~/.whatevershellrc of your test account to set this
> information by setting and exporting the GIT_AUTHOR_NAME and
> GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL env. variables (and may be others -- see the
> "git" manual page; run `git help git`).
>
> May be even add it in /etc/skel to make all accounts create inherit
> it.
>
> 2) Set these parameters in the repository you're working with.
>
> While Git suggests you to pass "--global" to the `git config`
> invocations, it's perfectly OK to use "--local" with them (which is
> IIRC the default, if not supplied) to make these settings be recorded
> in the repository's configuration rather than in ~/.gitconfig.
>
> 3) Pass these options explicitly to Git invocations or make a shell
> alias which would do so, like with
>
> function git() {
> command git \
> -c user.name='Joe Tester' \
> -c user.email=tester@xxxxxxxxx \
> "$@"
> }
>
> I'd personally go with (2).
Thanks.
Is there no switch? Its the most efficient way to accomplish the task.
Jeff