Re: What's in a name? Let's use a (uuid,name,email) triplet

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Michael Witten [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 08:56, Erik Faye-Lund [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Michael Witten [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 08:08, Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

First, the user.name and user.email does not need to be name and email
from some email account.  It might be some "canonical name" and
"canonical email".

The vast majority of patches come in through email; the git tools
expect the user.name and user.email to reflect physical email account
information.

What git tools would that be?

Anything involving emailed patches.

Which are...?

quoted

The only one I know of that does
anything near assuming that is git send-email, and it only uses
user.email if neither sendemail.from is configured nor --from option
is specified. And even when it does, it prompts the user so it can be
changed if called from a terminal. So I wouldn't say that it assumes
anything about the "physicalness" of user.email, it just uses it's as
the most sane default unless anything else has been specified.

It's useless to spoof the From field because many email services won't
send it, a point I already covered in the email you quoted.

When a patch is finally emailed, it's the From field that is used for
Author attribution.

The From-field isn't assumed to be a physical-address, but the
From-header is. If the From-field and the From-header are identical,
the From-field doesn't get emitted. This is the same mechanism that is
used when people forward patches from other authors, and there's no
attempts to validate the From-field, only the From-header.

So no, the author-email shouldn't need to be a physical address as far
as send-email is concerned.

-- 
Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund