Sean Allred <allred.sean@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> rather than use magic comments :-) Adapting to your suggestion, this
> might look like the following:
>
> A. U. Thor <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> <ada.example.com> <[ approxidate ]>
You'd probably want a timerange (valid-from and valid-to), instead
of one single timestamp?
Because at least three valid forms of mailmap entries should be
understood by the current generation of mailmap readers, i.e.
Human Readable Name <e-mail@xxxxxxxxx>
Right Name <right@xxxxxxxxx> <wrong@xxxxxxxxx>
Right Name <right@xxxxxxxxx> Wrong Name <wrong@xxxxxxxxx>
the extended entry format to record the validity timerange should
be chosen to cause parsers that are prepared to take these three
kinds of lines to barf and ignore.
