Re: [PATCH 1/2] test: mailmap can change author name without changing email

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] wrote:

Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

(2) 'email@example.com'
becomes the canonical author email for commits with author name 'A U
Thor'.

That's not true. I initially thought that was the case, and I think it
might be useful to have that, but it's not the case now, and your
patch doesn't test this.

Thanks for explaining.  I had indeed confused myself into thinking 'A
U Thor [off-list ref]' would act like 'A U Thor
[off-list ref] [off-list ref]'.

I should have said:

-- 8< --
A mailmap entry in the format 'A U Thor [off-list ref]' means
that 'A U Thor' should be the canonical author name for commits
with author address 'email@example.com', and the email address
should be left alone.

We already have tests for this format regarding the committer name,
but not in the author name, so the tests do not cover the shortlog and
blame codepaths as they should.  Fix that.
-- >8 --

At which point the summary doesn't seem to be correct "test: mailmap
can change author name without changing email". Plus, I fail to see
what would be the usefulness of this test, as changing name is
changing the name, regardless if it's the author or the committer.

[...]

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <redacted>

I most definitely did not sign this off, and I didn't add any of these
lines, nor wrote anything about this commit message.

That's why I described the changes I made, signed with my initials,
and put my own sign-off below yours.  Did I screw up somewhere?

You more or less rewrote the whole thing, I don't think you should put
my s-o-b in those cases.

Anyway, I have seen people use this format:

Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <redacted>
[jn: rewrite the patch]
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <redacted>

Even better:

Based on a patch by Felipe Contreras.

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <redacted>

Note that I am making these changes because, at its heart, I think
your patch is good and useful.  Otherwise I would have ignored it and
worked on something else.  If you prefer that I don't make
improvements like this, please indicate why that's a good idea;
otherwise I will probably continue to do it when I see good patches,
despite all the signals you are giving that I have done something
awful by corrupting your perfect patch in this way.

I didn't hint I preferred that. You said you wanted to improve my
patches, why can't I do the same?

-- 
Felipe Contreras