3 ms·

Except that would make the view of the log look terrible, because there are all kinds of times where the person who pushes is not the person who committed. If 1

by akerl_ 12y ago

Except that would make the view of the log look terrible, because there are all kinds of times where the person who pushes is not the person who committed. If 10 people on my team each do a commit on our cool local branch, and I happen to be the one who pushes the branch to git, do all of the changes show up with my name?

SilasX 12y ago
Maybe the preservation of "delegated commits" is not as important as keeping the commit history accurate?
- akerl_ 12y ago
  Since showing what `git log` actually contains is the definition of 'accurate', I'm not sure what you mean. They aren't "delegated commits", it's the nature of distributed version control: Github's copy of the repo doesn't get to claim special authority over other copies.
  - jaredsohn 12y ago
    I would define accurate as a combination of 'git log' and which account pushed to github. As it is, github seems to treat these commits differently (they aren't showing up on the other users' pages...at least as far as I can tell) so it seems like something that should be indicated in this UI as well.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    >Since showing what `git log` actually contains is the definition of 'accurate', That's a non-standard definition of the term.
    - akerl_ 12y ago
      In a git repo, history is shown with `git log`, so when I ask GitHub to show me the history of the repo, it ought to match `git log`. That's not "non-standard".
- arjie 12y ago
  What's accurate here? The guys who committed are the guys who are noted as the commit author¹. Just because I pushed the commits to a specific branch of a repo doesn't make me the author of the commit. Also, imagine the following: 1. Alice writes some code and pushes it to a feature branch. She does not necessarily use github, though she does use git. 2. Bob pulls from Alice's feature branch into a new feature branch. He then pushes to his own repo on github. All commits are rewritten to have Bob as the author. 3. Charlie pulls from Alice's feature branch into a new feature branch. He then pushes to his own repo on github. All commits are rewritten to have Charlie as the author. 4. If we go and bind it to the account, then suddenly everyone's history diverges. Bob and Charlie certainly see different histories. The fact that Alice is the one who actually wrote these commits is completely lost. I mean, it doesn't even make sense in a common-sense way. Why do I become the 'author' if I just pushed the code to a specific place? If you want to have some chain, force a merge commit every time someone merges. ¹ Well, specifically, they're the commit's committer, but if they did the work, they're the author too. Everything still applies.
  - wlievens 12y ago
    It could make sense for future versioning systems to separate author from committer.
    - djur 12y ago
      git supports this: % git config --get user.name Original Committer % git commit -m "Test" --author "Test Dude <test@example.com>" % git log -n 1 --pretty="%cn, %an: %s" Original Committer, Test Dude: Test

by akerl_ 12y ago

SilasX 12y ago

Maybe the preservation of "delegated commits" is not as important as keeping the commit history accurate?

akerl_ 12y ago
Since showing what `git log` actually contains is the definition of 'accurate', I'm not sure what you mean. They aren't "delegated commits", it's the nature of distributed version control: Github's copy of the repo doesn't get to claim special authority over other copies.
- jaredsohn 12y ago
  I would define accurate as a combination of 'git log' and which account pushed to github. As it is, github seems to treat these commits differently (they aren't showing up on the other users' pages...at least as far as I can tell) so it seems like something that should be indicated in this UI as well.
- SilasX 12y ago
  >Since showing what `git log` actually contains is the definition of 'accurate', That's a non-standard definition of the term.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    In a git repo, history is shown with `git log`, so when I ask GitHub to show me the history of the repo, it ought to match `git log`. That's not "non-standard".
arjie 12y ago
What's accurate here? The guys who committed are the guys who are noted as the commit author¹. Just because I pushed the commits to a specific branch of a repo doesn't make me the author of the commit. Also, imagine the following: 1. Alice writes some code and pushes it to a feature branch. She does not necessarily use github, though she does use git. 2. Bob pulls from Alice's feature branch into a new feature branch. He then pushes to his own repo on github. All commits are rewritten to have Bob as the author. 3. Charlie pulls from Alice's feature branch into a new feature branch. He then pushes to his own repo on github. All commits are rewritten to have Charlie as the author. 4. If we go and bind it to the account, then suddenly everyone's history diverges. Bob and Charlie certainly see different histories. The fact that Alice is the one who actually wrote these commits is completely lost. I mean, it doesn't even make sense in a common-sense way. Why do I become the 'author' if I just pushed the code to a specific place? If you want to have some chain, force a merge commit every time someone merges. ¹ Well, specifically, they're the commit's committer, but if they did the work, they're the author too. Everything still applies.
- wlievens 12y ago
  It could make sense for future versioning systems to separate author from committer.
  - djur 12y ago
    git supports this: % git config --get user.name Original Committer % git commit -m "Test" --author "Test Dude <test@example.com>" % git log -n 1 --pretty="%cn, %an: %s" Original Committer, Test Dude: Test