Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) writes: > >> Should this default to git_author_ident or git_committer_ident? >> I'm not really certain how we expect to use the different flavors. > > The only in-tree user after your patch is applied is the tagger > stuff, so in that sense committer_ident may make more sense.
There is also the commit path, and that comes from C. I'm not quite certain how we should be using the environmental variables. > Having said that, for something like this that would not be used > constantly and interatively by the users, my preference is not > to have any default at all, and always require --author or > --committer. You have to type a bit more when doing the script, > but that needs to be done only once. You will be sure which one > you are asking from the command two weeks after you wrote the > script so it is not a big loss. Make sense. Although I'm not quite certain we actually need the information twice. Possibly we just have GIT_AUTHOR_NAME and GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL, and then have commit-write take a flag to override the author bit. That would certainly make it less confusing when setting up environmental variables for git. And that would also give us a better name. > I am not seriously suggesting the below as an alternative, but > have you thought about doing an inverse function of your > computation for the case when the user has all the environment > variables, and have script eval its output, like this [*1*]: > > $ git-id > GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Junio C Hamano' > GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > GIT_COMMITTER_NAME='Junio C Hamano' > GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > $ eval "`git-id`" > $ tagger="$GIT_COMMITTER_NAME <$GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL>" > > Having names and emails available separately may turn out to be > easier to use in other situation. Just a thought. Part of the request was to put all of this information together in a common place. And note that it is actually: tagger="$GIT_COMMITTER_NAME <$GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL> $GIT_COMMITTER_DATE" Where the date is a human unreadable string of the number of seconds since the epoch (aka 1 Jan 1970 UTC). > By the way, I do not particularly like the name "git-id". There > could be IDs for different kinds (not just people) we would want > later (file IDs, for example). Naming what you are computing > _the_ "id" feels a bit too generic. I do not have a better > alternative to suggest, though. Agreed. Something like git-author or git-author-stamp is probably better. > *1* This makes its output syntax a bit too specific to the shell > and unfriendly to Porcelain written in other languages. The > only non-shell Porcelains I am aware of are done in Perl (I do > not remember hearing its name) and Python (StGIT), both of which > have reasonable regexp support to grok something like this, so > it would not be a big issue. And in git-commit-script this is actually parsed by sed which makes it so the shell can parse the information as well so I think we are fine in that sense. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
