81–90 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes, but maybe they should? It doesn't seem like a huge feature...
What about if somebody clones a repo, then adds a .mailmap pointing all the addresses in the history to their own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Still they want the commits to be associated with their current GitHub account Well, tough luck? I don't think it's that important. Just accept it as a fact of life: you lost access to your email account and can't verify you still own it (you don't, clearly). GitHub should just show the e-mail address when it can't associate that to an account, maybe show it's unverified and link to a help page explaining anyone co…
> Well, tough luck? I don't think it's that important. Just accept it as a fact of life: you lost access to your email account and can't verify you still own it (you don't, clearly). This case might not be super important in the long run, but why does it have to be a fact of life? If a system doesn't work as its human operators intend, that's a system failure, not a human being failure.
For the very reason mentioned in this article: people can claim the commits without verification.
Veering off topic but I absolutely hate that git requires you to have an "email address" (which cannot be empty and iirc must satisfy some regex criteria for a valid-looking address). A particular choice of user identifier or communication medium should not be hardcoded into the totally unrelated concern of source-control, IMO. Anonymous and non-email accounts should be first-class things. Instead of email maybe you'…
I have used emails in the past I can no longer verify, so I see a use case for linking unverified emails to profiles if there's only one profile claiming the email address However, if another profile verified that email address, it definitely shouldn't link to another profile that hasn't verified
I don't know how to handle this situation. It is somewhat easy to verify that a commit today comes from an email address I control now. However if I claim an unverified commit from years back is it really me just because I now control that email?
I noticed that arraypad is really trying to push his repography project. Whilst this is not a bad thing, it seems like he is using the blog posts as an excuse to push more his project. I don't mind that much, but I think I've seen these posts hitting the front page quite a lot already - it's a good strategy but it could be maybe against the guidelines: > Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, tough luck? I don't think it's that important. Just accept it as a fact of life: you lost access to your email account and can't verify you still own it (you don't, clearly). This case might not be super important in the long run, but why does it have to be a fact of life? If a system doesn't work as its human operators intend, that's a system failure, not a human being failure.
> This case might not be super important in the long run, but why does it have to be a fact of life? For the very reason mentioned in this article: people can claim the commits without verification.
"people can claim the commits without verification." - Well, tough luck? I don't think it's that important. Just accept it as a fact of life. You didn't cryptographically sign your commit and now nobody (including you) can prove who made it.