By substituting the author string with obvious garbage-- like only allowing the word "dingus" to be shown there. :)
I used git format-patch to make the patch, then git apply with --stat and --check to look at some meta-data and see if it would apply correctly. Finally, I used git-am to apply the patch. I don't believe any of those steps actually show you the author name and email addy used in the patch. Even visually perusing the diff it's not something I tend to look closely at. 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...".
-Jonathan
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:16 AM, Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
On 05/05/16 05:54, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-dev wrote:
However, the user-friendly tools that wrap around git (github, gitlab, etc.) don't make this clear as you can hopefully see. :)
Also, without signed commits (which are the exception rather than the rule) I am curious as to how you think user-friendly tools could make this clear, or even know it was happening?
Cheers,
Chris.