On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 04:17:28AM +0000, Emma Brooks wrote:

> 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.

Yeah, I agree that probably doesn't make sense to change "rev-list
--header". I wonder if git could be using "rev-list --format" instead,
though, and asking for the specific things it wants. That could improve
more than just this case, too (e.g., the C code would be parsing and
normalizing author/committer idents, which could make handling of badly
formatted ones more consistent with other Git tools).

It may be a big change, though. I don't know the gitweb code very well.

> 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?

That would certainly help, though I don't know how easy it would be to
replicate all of the tests in a maintainable way.

-Peff