From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Are author names ending with a dot invalid? Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:23:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20120519002335.GD765@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 19 02:23:45 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SVXSS-0005jG-Do for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 19 May 2012 02:23:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932827Ab2ESAXk (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2012 20:23:40 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:48885 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932552Ab2ESAXj (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2012 20:23:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 9923 invoked by uid 107); 19 May 2012 00:24:02 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 18 May 2012 20:24:02 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 18 May 2012 20:23:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 02:14:57AM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > It looks like authors ending with a dot ('Foo Jr. ') are > converted without a dot ('Foo Jr ') is that intentional? I was just digging in this code today, and I noticed the same thing. The culprit is ident.c:copy, which strips magic characters from the beginning, end, and middle. Except that the set of magic characters is different at the edges (see ident.c:crud), and in the middle ("<", ">", "\n"). This dates all the way back to 6aa33f4 (Abstract out the "name date" handling of commit-tree.c, 2005-07-12), which in turn was adapting code from earlier (though it also has the issue). So I think it's intentional, but I also think it's wrong, and it's simply that nobody has complained about it, because it's not that common. -Peff