> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 16:07 +0000, James Troup wrote:
>> Our use case is /etc in bzr. We don't care at all about having valid
>> email addresses in the bzr history for these branches. This change is
>> really problematic for us. We're either going to have to patch it out
>> or fix hundreds of machines (either by running bzr whoami or setting
>> BZR_EMAIL with some dummy value).
> I agree we should keep supporting that use case. Would having bzr only
> warn about no username being set be a problem for you?
If it warns once, that's fine. If it warns on every invocation of bzr,
that's no better at all.
Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> writes:
> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 16:07 +0000, James Troup wrote:
>> Our use case is /etc in bzr. We don't care at all about having valid
>> email addresses in the bzr history for these branches. This change is
>> really problematic for us. We're either going to have to patch it out
>> or fix hundreds of machines (either by running bzr whoami or setting
>> BZR_EMAIL with some dummy value).
> I agree we should keep supporting that use case. Would having bzr only
> warn about no username being set be a problem for you?
If it warns once, that's fine. If it warns on every invocation of bzr,
that's no better at all.
--
James