From git Tue Jan 31 00:54:53 2017 From: Cornelius Schumacher Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:54:53 +0000 To: git Subject: Re: [RFC] Proof of concept: Support multiple authors Message-Id: <3204990.cGxpkETTLk () linux-7ekr> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148582517107757 On Monday 30 January 2017 12:48:52 Junio C Hamano wrote: > > https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=gmane:83880 > https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=gmane:146223 > https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=gmane:146886 Thanks for putting the links together. That's very useful as a reference. > The older discussions already cited the cost to update both in-tree > and out-of-tree tools not to barf when they see such a commit object > and one of the reason why we would not want to do this, and Ted Ts'o > gave us another excellent reason why not to do multiple author > header lines in a commit object header, i.e. "How often is that all > of the authors are completely equal?" Just to give a bit of context: In the pair programming environment where I work we usually use non-personalized workstations and switch the keyboard between the two people working together quite frequently, sometimes every few minutes, or even within writing a commit message. There the person pressing the return button on the commit really does not have a special role. In this style of working I think it feels like the fairest and most practical assumption to treat all authors as equal. > My advice to those who want to record credit to multiple authors is > to treat the commit author line as recording the primary contact > when there is a question on the commit and nothing else. Anything > with richer semantics is better done in the trailer by enriching the > support of trailer lines with interpret-trailers framework. Thanks for the advice. I think I will explore this direction a little bit further and see how handling a situation of multiple authors could be better done in this framework. -- Cornelius Schumacher