From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC601F66E for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 04:19:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726134AbgHKERr (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:17:47 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:47882 "EHLO aibo.runbox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725860AbgHKERr (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:17:47 -0400 Received: from [10.9.9.74] (helo=submission03.runbox) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k5LjM-00031X-VW; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 06:17:45 +0200 Received: by submission03.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated alias (964124)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1k5LjK-0000wT-Rf; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 06:17:43 +0200 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 04:17:28 +0000 From: Emma Brooks To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub =?utf-8?B?TmFyxJlic2tp?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gitweb: map names/emails with mailmap Message-ID: <20200811041728.GA1748@pluvano.com> References: <20200808213457.13116-1-me@pluvano.com> <20200809230436.2152-1-me@pluvano.com> <20200810100249.GC37030@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200810100249.GC37030@coredump.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 2020-08-10 06:02:49-0400, Jeff King wrote: > There was a little discussion in response to v1 on whether we could > reuse the existing C mailmap code: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200731010129.GD240563@coredump.intra.peff.net/ > > Did you have any thoughts on that? I think it's probably not worth the effort to make the necessary changes to "rev-list --header" Junio mentioned, just for gitweb. I agree it's a bit worrisome to have a second parser that could potentially behave slightly differently than the main implementation. What if we added tests for gitweb's mailmap parsing based on the same cases used for Git itself?