[PATCH] comments: display username and name instead of only username

[Mads Kiilerich]

On 04/21/2015 08:23 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
>> On 04/20/2015 06:51 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>> I would go for:
>>> - pull request author: full name (username)
>>> - pull request reviewers: full name (username)
>>> - pull request commit overview: username only
>>>
>>> For changeset/changelog displaying, I'm not fully sure: suppose
>>> someone uses the same e-mail to commit under two different display
>>> names, for example 'John Doe' and 'John Doe (scripted)'. In this case,
>>> one would probably expect the name from the commit header to appear in
>>> the changeset/changelog details.
>>> But the correlation to the actual user as known in Kallithea is also
>>> useful, so we should show that too, at least in the changeset details.
>>> In case both the name in the commit header, and the name known to
>>> Kallithea is the same, there would be some duplication if we show
>>> both, though. Maybe we should show both but clearly indicate that one
>>> is coming from the commit header and the other (if available) is the
>>> detail from Kallithea.
>>
>> Currently we always use the user entry and show the username if the email
>> address is known (and we allow the system to email the user - we will never
>> spam users / email addresses that are unknown to the system). I think that
>> is fine. If the user wants to commit under different names, he should use
>> different email addresses.
> While I understand your reasoning, it doesn't work in a corporate
> environment where you have only one e-mail address and no easy way to
> create aliases.
> I'm not saying that e-mail address should no longer be unique in
> Kallithea. I'm just saying that if a user commits with a name
> different than the name in Kallithea (under the same e-mail address)
> we should not ignore that or hide it in Kallithea.

I will put it the other way around: If you have a corporate environment 
where the users have different roles that must be kept separate then it 
makes totally sense to require that the users have several email 
addresses. It is not a good idea to encode that semantics in the more 
free form username part of the email field.

Anyway: Most email servers allows specifying a custom part of the email 
address - such as patrickdepinguin+hello at gmail.com . That can perhaps 
also be used in your case to separate roles?

I often see a lot of different spellings of the users names in our 
system but their email is usually written correctly. In our case, I just 
want to see the normalized name based on the email address.

/Mads