Subject: Re: Dealing with corporate email recycling

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 23:16:24 +0000

Sean Allred <[email-masked]> writes:

> rather than use magic comments :-) Adapting to your suggestion, this
> might look like the following:
>
>     A. U. Thor <[email-masked]> <ada.example.com> <[ approxidate ]>

You'd probably want a timerange (valid-from and valid-to), instead
of one single timestamp?

Because at least three valid forms of mailmap entries should be
understood by the current generation of mailmap readers, i.e.

    Human Readable Name <[email-masked]>
    Right Name <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
    Right Name <[email-masked]> Wrong Name <[email-masked]>

the extended entry format to record the validity timerange should
be chosen to cause parsers that are prepared to take these three
kinds of lines to barf and ignore.