From fc52b0c025e67e6d4d2ad64a70d51b2ef43f9839 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:34:23 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] further thoughts --- doc/todo/git_attribution/discussion.mdwn | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/todo/git_attribution/discussion.mdwn b/doc/todo/git_attribution/discussion.mdwn index 42cc8449e..0078c3ae1 100644 --- a/doc/todo/git_attribution/discussion.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/git_attribution/discussion.mdwn @@ -63,3 +63,21 @@ no determination of uniqueness) >>Sounds good to me, >> >> --[[harningt]] + +> I think the thing to do is, as Josh suggested originally, use +> GIT_AUTHOR_NAME and GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL. Note that setting these +> individually is best, so git can independently validate/sanitize both +> (which it does do somewhat). Always put the username/openid/IP in +> GIT_AUTHOR_NAME; if the user has configured an email address, +> GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL can also be set. +> +> There is one thing yet to be solved, and that is how to tell the +> difference between a web commit by 'Joey Hess ', +> and a git commit by the same. I think we do want to differentiate these, +> and the best way to do it seems to be to add a line to the end of the +> commit message. Something like: "\n\nWeb-commit: true" +> +> For backwards compatability, the code that parses the current stuff needs +> to be left in. But it will need to take care to only parse that if the +> commit isn't flagged as a web commit! Else web committers could forge +> commits from others. --[[Joey]] -- 2.45.1