On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 06:04:13PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 10:14:37PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > >> +static int set_ident_internal(const char *var, const char *value,
> > >> + struct strbuf *sb, const int flag)
> > >> +{
> > >> + if (!value)
> > >> + return config_error_nonbool(var);
> > >> + strbuf_reset(sb);
> > >> + strbuf_addstr(sb, value);
> > >> + author_ident_explicitly_given |= flag;
> > >> + ident_config_given |= flag;
> > >> + return 0;
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> +static int set_ident(const char *var, const char *value)
> > >> +{
> > >> + if (!strcmp(var, "author.name"))
> > >> + return set_ident_internal(var, value, &git_author_name,
> > >> + IDENT_NAME_GIVEN);
> > >> + else if (!strcmp(var, "author.email"))
> > >> + return set_ident_internal(var, value, &git_author_email,
> > >> + IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN);
> > >> + else if (!strcmp(var, "committer.name"))
> > >> + return set_ident_internal(var, value, &git_committer_name,
> > >> + IDENT_NAME_GIVEN);
> > >> + else if (!strcmp(var, "committer.email"))
> > >> + return set_ident_internal(var, value, &git_committer_email,
> > >> + IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN);
> > >> + else if (!strcmp(var, "user.name"))
> > >> + return set_ident_internal(var, value, &git_default_name,
> > >> + IDENT_NAME_GIVEN);
> > >> + else if (!strcmp(var, "user.email"))
> > >> + return set_ident_internal(var, value, &git_default_email,
> > >> + IDENT_MAIL_GIVEN);
> > >> + return 0;
> > >> +}
> > >
> > > In the v5 patch from William, author_ident_explicitly_given and
> > > committer_ident_explicitly_given were set separately depending on
> > > what variable was given (e.g. user.name marked both, author.name
> > > marked only author but not committer_ident_explicitly_given). In
> > > the original before the addition of this feature with v6, giving
> > > user.name would have set both, as we can see below.
> > >
> > > Is this change intended?
> > >
> > > Or did you find that committer_ident_explicitly_given is no longer
> > > useful and the variable is not used anymore?
> >
> > No, that's a mistake of mine when porting this over, but also clearly a
> > blindspot in our tests since they all pass with this.
> >
> > I haven't dug (don't have time right now) to check what the effect of
> > that is. William?
>
> I attempted to save your patches to apply them, but didn't have any luck
More info here. I use mutt and when I tagged the patches and saved them
to a mailbox, they went to a mailldir type folder, and "git am" didn't
seem to like that, but I'll try again.
> Also, according to Junio's report, my patch is already merged to next,
> so if you give me your patch based on that, I'll take a look, but it may
> be a day or so.
Sorry, I misread, my patch is not in next.
But, Junio's discussion above is why I didn't make this change. I don't
know the code base all that well, so I didn't want my first patch to
possibly introduce regressions. :-)
William
