Hi, On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Brandon Williams wrote: > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:08 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 1:40 PM Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Brandon Williams wrote: > > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bwilliams.eng@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > --- > > >> > .mailmap | 1 + > > >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > >> > > >> I can confirm that this is indeed the same person. > > > > > > What would be more of interest is why we'd be interested in this > > > patch as there is no commit/patch sent by Brandon with this email in > > > gits history. > > > > Once I "git am" the message that began this thread, there will be a > > commit under this new ident, so that would be somewhat a moot point. > > > > If this were "Jonathan asked Brandon if we want to record an address > > we can reach him in our .mailmap file and sent a patch to add one", > > then the story is different, and I tend to agree with you that such a > > patch is more or less pointless. That's not the purpose of the > > mailmap file. > > > > Turns out this is exactly the reason :) I've had a couple of people > reach out to me asking me to do this because CCing my old email bounces > and they've wanted my input/comments on something related to work I've > done. If that's not the intended purpose then please ignore this patch Unless we come up with a better way to indicate the current address of a Git contributor (I seem to remember that David Turner used the same approach after leaving Twitter so that people could Cc: him with the correct address), I suggest that we keep using .mailmap for that purpose. Thanks, Dscho
