Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Secondly: it seems like a restatement of the goals of this patch would > help guide a discussion of designs; I would be so pleased to see a > cleaner solution than any that's been proposed so far, because I agree > that this feature is not perfect. So please append what I have missed: > > Axiom: The current Git solution for avoiding deadnaming is insufficient. > Axiom: We want to improve Git's solution for avoiding deadnaming. > (That is, I don't think either of these statements are or should be up > for discussion.) Another one [*1*]: Axiom: It is, by nature of how Git works, impossible to come up with a solution that avoids deadnaming perfectly. The best we can do is to aim for "good enough". > Goal: Projects which are contributed to by trans individuals who > transition during their contribution period should provide a good, > supportive experience, which does not deadname the individual. > Goal: Git's performance should not suffer unduly from any change unless > necessary. > Goal: Project maintainers should have an understanding of the threat > model (e.g. automated tools scraping for names, malicious individuals > with time on their hands and experience with the project, etc) Goal: the design should clearly describe the thread model it supports, so that "good enough" can be judged against it. [Footnote] *1* This may be clear from what both you and I said about perfection and being good enough. I usually do not like to see people punt for an imperfect solution too early without even trying, but in a case like this where we know perfection is theoretically impossible, it is a totally different story.
