Status: Reopened (View Workflow)
Right now when adding a GitHub source in Blue Ocean every change merged from a pull request is being shown as "Changes from noreply". This also impacts all plugins that rely on the commiters for a build since it effectively hides the actual authors (including when using `email-ext` or `mailer`).
Since changing the default behaviour might be a breaking change, an option should be added to the pipeline so that each agent uses the correct strategy for the checkout.
(in `git-plugin` this is called `AuthorInChangelog`)
- Switch to displaying the Author information for Git repositories (instead of Committer)
- is blocked by
JENKINS-43507 Allow SCMSource and SCMNavigator subtypes to share common traits
I don't think that the core API for change sets can differentiate between committer and author. I'd strongly suggest either it is updated to support that or we switch from one to another.
As rochdev pointed out, the git plugin has this support already - https://github.com/jenkinsci/git-plugin/blob/master/src/main/java/hudson/plugins/git/extensions/impl/AuthorInChangelog.java - so I think this would be best as an option for the GitHub branch source, probably for BitBucket branch source as well.
If it is possible to enable it by default it would be best, since the current behaviour doesn't make much sense anyway. I can't think of a reason why anybody would want to keep `nobody` as the author of every commits.
JENKINS-43507 enabled the GitSCMExtension that provides AuthorInChangeLog
Seems like this may make sense to add as an option for Declarative - might actually end up doing it in git-plugin, though. We'll see.
I have to agree completely that substituting the commiter for what should really be the patch author is really not very useful at all. It doesn't make sense to e-mail the commiter when there is a problem with the patch. It doesn't make sense for Blue Ocean to list the commiter as the person responsible for the change.
Is this issue anywhere near completion?
I am actually wondering if this should be reported as a bug instead, since the GitHub source is basically incompatible with GitHub.