From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: A Large Angry SCM Subject: Re: [PATCH] mailmap: resurrect lower-casing of email addresses Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:51:42 -0400 Message-ID: <49D6BD2E.2030208@gmail.com> References: <49D53ABF.80706@gmail.com> <7v63hmekyv.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <49D542FA.3070304@gmail.com> <49D54799.9010607@gmail.com> Reply-To: gitzilla@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 04 03:53:22 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Lpv4T-0004Nx-Bw for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:53:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764306AbZDDBvu (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:51:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763636AbZDDBvt (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:51:49 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.31]:27981 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754349AbZDDBvs (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:51:48 -0400 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 5so1260215ywb.1 for ; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:51:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id :disposition-notification-to:date:from:reply-to:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Pqt7tWXxpvD5dokfm87c8qkT1UIX9tenNDpZqi4KaRs=; b=L+hCEDtBxgqESmZJPVx6kzY3nRkgmzN7ePCoMxI0k9DLf5ATW5C09t4O/WKPmFkdKF 0k+vAiTa7H1o2OwRy4xQ2h1cTu/MfeIkhxQPwgWHbmUpODjQRW9e0j6v3UWVJSBQS3FB yORNs1WZ7tXsvZEoYC8vG4ltyWDD7FX07l03Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ClM8HqYZAcSKj9Ac1AU7aJA/rE7kue8vAXjHJsClxaEViguTmWzD4ADewL7wIoFOLZ +RuGD0sEuO5m1lU8YWXwFGMe3Xex37kD8OJbirumuMkRbUkFuHgu7lbYXTun7eOzy94J IXcfhLtanr3dixXzLCzSbqnEOro5MuX4GD+ok= Received: by 10.90.66.14 with SMTP id o14mr1114253aga.43.1238809905502; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.0.6? (c-66-177-19-100.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [66.177.19.100]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 38sm3583850aga.29.2009.04.03.18.51.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:51:45 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20060911) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, A Large Angry SCM wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, A Large Angry SCM wrote: >>> >>>> Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>>> Johannes Schindelin writes: >>>>> >>>>>>> What part of the email address is this going to lowercase? >>>>>>> Only the domain name is case agnostic. >>>>> That is my understanding of RFC, too. Let's see where this mail >>>>> goes to find out how much more lenient the real world is ;-). >>>>> >>>> Many email providers/servers are lenient when it comes to case in >>>> the local part of an email address (after all, they control the >>>> interpretation) but not every provider/server is and the RFC is VERY >>>> clear on this issue. >>> And in one of my projects it is _very_ clear that this strict >>> interpretation of the RFC, which does not matter in reality, >>> _actively_ _hurts_. >> Care to provide actual justification for that statement. > > Well, I _did_! I have at least _one_ repository where the case > insensitive email addresses worked, and got fscked over, by having Git > change behavior behind my back! > >>> In the alternative, can I ask you to adjust my .mailmap in your free >>> time? >> _Your_ .mailmap file is your issue. >> >> So which standards do you choose to follow and which do you choose to >> ignore? > > You chose a rather inappropriate moment to start one of those damned > flamewars -- I am in the middle of some rather important day-job meeting, > plus two projects in the deadline-is-looming GSoC frenzy. > > In case it was not clear yet: if I have to chose between following a > standard and reality that just took over, I will _always_ choose the > latter. > > If you take this mail to start a flamewar for real (i.e. not answer to my > concerns, but point out that standard X says bla, and that everybody else > should just obey, oh, and fix their ways as of 20 years), please do remove > me from the Cc: list. This is not worth a flame-war, and Peff has already created a response superior to my own, so I'll leave to Junio to find the best(TM) path.