On Fri, Feb 9, 2024, at 09:46, Marcus Tillmanns wrote:
> Everything you said is true. But it misses the point.
>
> If I try to commit for the first time, don’t want to set the global
> config, look at man git-commit and search for “author", it says
> “—author” to specify the author.
That reminds me of a mistake I once did. I was setting things up on a
different machine and I set `author.*` in my config. Then I got very
confused when `git commit` complained. I totally failed to see that I
need to set `user.*`, not `author.*`.
Ideally I think I should have gotten this error:
```
Committer identity unknown
The `author` config is set but not `committer`.
Did you mean to set `user` (author and committer)?
```
> Since “comitter” is such a hidden feature that even long time users of
> git don’t necessarily know about it, when I then specify “—author” and
> get the “same” error message again, I have no clue what’s going on,
> since I just specified my user name and email, and still I’m told it
> cannot be determined.
This is a very good point. The _committer_ is pretty well-hidden in
normal workflows. And probably irrelevant.
So when a user gets this error:
```
Committer identity unknown
*** Please tell me who you are.
```
And have never heard of “committer” before… what is she to think? I
think it’s very natural to conclude that “author” and “committer” are
the same thing. So she thinks:
“ Okay, so the program is complaining about the author not being
set. (It calls it “committer” here for some reason.) But I have set
the author…
Maybe this is another case of: it all makes perfect sense if you already
know all the concepts.
>> Your report would have been more clear if you included the error:
>
> Had I had any idea that the report was different between with / without
> —author I probably would have added it, or found out what the issue was.
You don’t know what you don’t know. That’s why it’s best to include all
context.
Cheers
--
Kristoffer Haugsbakk
