PQM should attribute work using the 'author' attribute

[Dan Watkins]

At the moment, the bzr team has to include the name of the submitter in the subject line to PQM, as it's the only way to keep a record of it. It would make more sense to use the 'author' attribute.

[Dan Watkins (oddbloke)]

The fix submitted isn't ideal, some discussion needs to happen.

[Facundo Batista (facundo)]

It'd be great to have this functionality, is very needed to keep ordered track of the info.

Daniel, are you still working on this?

Thank you!!

[James Henstridge (jamesh)]

Is there any reason why you changed the branch to set "submitter" rather than "author"?

Having PQM perform a merge on your behalf seems pretty much the same as having someone else commit code on your behalf (the case where "author" is used). Also, existing tools already handle revisions with the author property set.

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

Only people creating new content should set author - PQM does merges; bzr won't annotate any lines to PQM at all - they will all annotate to the originating revisions. I don't think setting author would be appropriate.

[Alexandre Garnier (zigarn)]

For automatic log parsing system, having the right 'author' (or 'submitter') could be important, or it always see PQM as committer.

A use case would be Hudson/Jenkins : it extracts the committer info from the committer field in logs. With PQM handled project, it' always PQM and then, if the build fails, it sends an email to PQM, not the real committer...
It would be possible to extract info from commit message, but it's not the most logical and simpliest way.

[Alexandre Garnier (zigarn)]

At least, it could be a config option in PQM to set this field or not.