Hi Ariadne,

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:21:02PM -0500, Ariadne Conill wrote:

Hello,

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:07 PM Phil Hord [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The issue of deadnaming aside, turning on log.mailmap by default is
the sensible thing to do given that other Git features already honor
it that way.  Having it ignored-by-default (but only sometimes) just
adds confusion when a mailmap is available.

This is my point exactly!  My motive for improving this behaviour is
entirely irrelevant, honestly.  I regret ever bringing it up elsewhere
in the discussions, as it's completely irrelevant.

Yeah, I think that this makes much more sense (at least to me) as an
issue separate from the deadname rewriting topic. If nothing else, this
makes 'git log' act like 'git shortlog', which only makes sense.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

 - The '.mailmap' provides a list of transgender individuals, along
   with their deadname, which can be used to harass them.

This is potentially a problem but it's not as bad as you depict.  A
mailmap rule can match against e-mail only, which is precisely what I
have done in my projects.

Ah, I may be severely mistaken -- my memory was that '.mailmap'
rewriting could be used to rewrite both name and email, not merely
email. I thought that records could take:

  A U Thor [off-list ref] -> B C Xyzz [off-list ref]

instead of canonicalizing by email alone. If this is the case, then I
completely agree and share the opinion that this is not as bad as I
originally depicted.

The long form you give there is to be used in case the old email
address is not a unique key. See 'git help shortlog'.

The problem we have at work is that one woman's old email address
includes her deadname, like [off-list ref].  I will
leave it up to her whether she chooses to be listed explicitly in the
mailmap.  I have wondered if we should permit hashed email addresses
to be used for this specific case, but this also has its drawbacks.

I'd be open to looking into adding support for hashing the e-mail for
cases like this if people are interested.  The
firstname.lastname@company.com case is certainly a tough one to crack
otherwise, but I think that a solution that works for most cases still
is useful.  In the meantime, I think it makes sense to let people
decide whether they wish to use mailmap for this purpose, based on
their own understanding of the risks involved.

Yep. Totally agreed, and thank you for these patches.

Ariadne

Thanks,
Taylor