1

I am under impression that protecting privacy of user is a "big deal" - even if only declaratively. Example: discussion on meta about e-mail addresses on SO.

Whilst I do expect that sooner or later my e-mail address will leak from some hacked database or contact list, I would nevertheless expect portals to which I give this data to at least try to conceal it from public.

Why then with GitHub I can simply go to .patch file of a commit? From GitHub:

Commits must be made with an email address that has been added to your GitHub profile in order to appear on your contributions graph. You can check the email address used for a commit by adding .patch to the end of a commit URL, e.g. https://github.com/octocat/octocat.github.io/commit/67c0afc1da354d8571f51b6f0af8f2794117fd10.patch:

From 67c0afc1da354d8571f51b6f0af8f2794117fd10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: The Octocat <octocat@nowhere.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:36:39 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] updated index for better welcome message

Why they would allow an impersonation as well? The answer they give here is:

Because Git is a distributed version control system, GitHub must use the commit email address to assign attribution. When you push a repository to GitHub.com it may contain one or more commits, some of which you may not have authored. For example, imagine a scenario where you collaborated with a number of people on a git repository before you made your first push of that repository to GitHub.com. This push would contain a number of commits from several authors. It would be incorrect to assign all of the commits to the person doing the push, so we use the commit log email addresses to assign attribution on GitHub.com. Each subsequent push to GitHub uses this same logic to assign attribution of commit authors.

Why it must use the e-mail addresses? Cannot they obfuscate them? Cannot there be an functionality that you need to explicitly allow a certain repository to link a commit e-mail with your account? Simply giving the option to impersonate is an acceptable alternative?

Perhaps I am heavily confused here being new to GitHub and programming itself, but it seems that GitHub is a public repository of e-mails and I find it somewhat shocking. Also if you have an e-mail address you may check if someone uses it on GitHub. If you have a linked user name you can half expect that the same nickname might be use elsewhere (e.g. SO) since, I think, there is no recommended good practice of using varying usernames on different portals (like there is for passwords).

Is then what GitHub is doing a commonly accepted practice?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Anders, Xander, CaffeineAddiction, techraf, J.A.K. Feb 23 '17 at 9:09

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    I think if you use git, is how git works. As simple as that. You can commit with fake mail if you don't trust the system. – OscarAkaElvis Feb 22 '17 at 20:32
  • Transparency, perhaps. In light of open-source, it might be inherent to the idea of being able to track and contact the people who have made changes. – Bram Vanroy Feb 22 '17 at 21:32
3

Why then with GitHub I can simply go to .patch file of a commit?

There's no security benefit in hiding or obfuscating email addresses from this .patch interface: anyone who wanted the email addresses of authors or committers in a publicly accessible project could see them anyway just by cloning the repo. Also importantly, the patch file produced by this interface is intended to be usable as an input to git am. That is, if you obtain such a patch, forward it to someone else (perhaps through a mailing list), and someone else applies it to their copy of a repo with git am, it should generate a commit with the same metadata at the other end, nearly as if you did git cherry-pick from one branch to another. The author and committer names, email addresses, and dates, as well as the commit message, are the important parts of that metadata.

Why it must use the e-mail addresses?

Well, you can certainly stamp whatever author names and email addresses you want on git commits (nothing can stop you), and you can push those commits to remotes (including GitHub), but you can't change them after the fact (without invalidating the commit and all downstream commits). That's just how git works: the commit metadata goes in to the calculation of the SHA1 that becomes the commit's identifier.

Would you be happy if all your published had Your Name <ghurpost@xxx-obsuscated.example.com> listed as the author? Remember, you cannot afterward somehow de-obfuscate that afterward and have the commit's SHA1 unchanged.

Having something in a piece of version control software that "guards" the identities of authors is largely incompatible with DVCS. If you need that, then you're probably looking for a centralized version control system (CVCS).

  • I would add that GitHub recognizes the special username@users.noreply.github.com as associated with the account. If you want to keep your email address private, you can. – user2313067 Feb 23 '17 at 7:47