On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:14:33 +0000, Robin Green wrote: > You mean, if we see all three: > > f...@example.com > Name One <f...@example.com> > Name Two <f...@example.com> > > Ah yes, in that case it might be someone who has changed their name, > so we shouldn't do *any* automatic combining at all. Exactly the same > as if we just see: > > Name One <f...@example.com> > Name Two <f...@example.com>
OK the requested behaviour is that darcs show authors should consider f...@example.com and Name <f...@example.com> equivalent, but only if Name is the only thing that ever gets associated with f...@example.com. For what it's worth, my vote is no. This kind of sophistication has a cost; it means more room for error and more documentation to write. Unless anybody speaks up in favour of this, I'm going to mark this as wont-fix on the tracker. Could I ask you to see if the maintaining the .authorspellings file is really so inconvenient in practice? Sorry, part of our job is to bat away feature requests that would add complexity (even if it's just a little bit). But keep the feature requests coming! The ones that get through can be really helpful :-) Cheers, -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpmnxk1ppBmy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
