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?
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?
Cheers,
Jelmer