-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 287
Merge duplicate contributors 👤👤👤👤 #447
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
Sounds like a good idea to me.I would be interested in doing this. @o2sh is it still open? |
It's all yours 👍 |
@o2sh While currently working on this, I am asking myself, why it is the better way to identify by email in the first place and not the username, when only the email can change and not the username? Or am I missing something? |
You can actually also change your GitHub username, even though it's less common. The username/email that appear in the I agree that merging based on the email seems arbitrary but so it is if we would have chosen the username: both give unsatisfactory results. Hence the second pass. |
Alrighty, that seems reasonable 👍 |
Git has a mechanism for identifying users by .mailmap file. Is that not enough? |
To be honest, I wasn't even aware that Git provided such a mechanism. For repositories that do provide this file, this would definitely solve our issue. Git2 seems to provide bindings to take advantage of Mailmap. Maybe, we should explore that solution, it may result in a cleaner logic and prevent us from making any wrong assumptions on whether or not an entry is a duplicate. What do you think @HallerPatrick @yoichi @spenserblack Some repositories using |
This I think, which implies reverting #449 and adding a |
But isn't |
You're right @HallerPatrick , the presence of the .mailmap should drive the merging policy, with a fallback to what is currently in place - if no .mailmap is provided. Even though, to be 100% correct: we shouldn't even be allowed to make the assumption that two commits made with the same email (and different username) corresponds to the same author. For example, |
@o2sh You have a point here with the 100% correctness. I mean what we could do is another command line flag which allows for assumptions to merge by email and also write in the docs, that maintainers of their repo could include a |
Ok for the docs, not so much about adding a command line flag. I think we should stick to what Something in the line of the |
Since @yoichi's PR #243: we identify each contributor by their email address instead of their username which is definitely the right solution. However in some cases, a user may have changed his GH email along the way and therefore appear twice - or more - in the
Authors
section:It may be a good idea to have a second pass in
get_authors
and merge the lines that share the sameusername.to_lowercase()
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: