On 05/05/16 14:08, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
By substituting the author string with obvious garbage-- like only allowing the word "dingus" to be shown there. :)
...
I guess I'd be a bit happier if git required the committer to explicitly transfer authorship in this case (either with a flag or a separate command). "Foo typed 'Linus' here" is better than "someone typed 'Linus' and maybe Foo is validating that it was Linus, or maybe Foo did not notice, or maybe Foo does not care...".
Sure but how is git (or other tools) supposed to know this "explicit ownership transfer" is even happening? How is it supposed to validate the "correct" author? How is git supposed to know that "Foo typed 'Linus'" and not Linus or that Linus isn't correcting a commit erroneously attributed to Foo?
Git authorship and committer fields are completely malleable by anybody on their local machine and anybody with push access to a repo can push [-f] whatever authorship changes they like.
You probably realise this and I'm missing some deeper point you are making, but you can easily change those fields with environment variables, command line flags, the git-filter-branch and git-rebase commands, and even during a single commit trivially (as I think you are demonstrating here).
If your aim is to bring greater awareness to the fact that git makes no pretense at identity management or authentication then I'm 100% on board and in agreement! \o/
If not, I'm sorry, I'm deeply confused! (Not that unusual a state of affairs heh.)
Cheers,
Chris.