Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: > On 13/03/2022 23:16, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> 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? > I'm not so sure that the date range approach won't bring it's own > problems. What happens outside the date range? i.e. Do we then have > three identities: Before, During, and After, with only 'During' being > defined? I have been assuming that the default is "what the commit has is correct". > I more see a single date being used as a termination point for an > existing email sequence that defines a retrospective end point for the > mapping of the old email addresses to a single person. Implicitly specifying the valid-from date (which is either the beginning of time, or the newest of valid-until time for the same identifying string that is older than the valid-until date for the entry in question) is fine. I do not see fundamental difference between the approach you suggest and having an explicit valid-from date.
