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.

--
http://mccormick.cx/