On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:57:43PM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote:

> > I'm not sure how orthogonal it is. The latter half of my series is about
> > exposing the user_ident_sufficiently_given() flag. If we go with
> > Felipe's patch, then that exposed information has no users, and it may
> > not be worth it (OTOH, it's possible that some third-party script may
> > want it).
> Well, who is using user_ident_sufficiently_given() in the first place?
> I think 'git commit' might be suffering from the same problem that
> prompted you to split it.

It is just `git commit` now. It does not suffer from the problems that
prompted the author/committer split:


To expand on what I wrote there, we cannot hit case 2 because we always
ask for the committer within the same process. Case 1 is not
interesting, because we would only fail to show it if is identical to a
non-implicit committer (so even if it was implicit, we know that it is a
sane value).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to