From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] git-am: support any number of signatures Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:33:48 +0300 Message-ID: <20140618073348.GA22670@redhat.com> References: <1402589505-27632-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20140613080036.GA2117@redhat.com> <20140615102736.GA11798@redhat.com> <20140618030903.GA19593@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List , Christian Couder To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 18 09:33:30 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WxAN7-0000Wf-W4 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:33:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933338AbaFRHdZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:33:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15658 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753268AbaFRHdZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:33:25 -0400 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5I7XLvU026506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:33:21 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-116-25.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.25]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id s5I7XJWU021467; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:33:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:49:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > OK, after looking into this for a while, I realize > > this is a special property of the Signed-off-by footer. > > For now I think it's reasonable to just avoid de-duplicating > > other footers if any. Agree? > > Not really. I'd rather see "git am" hardcode as little such policy as possible. > We do need to support S-o-b footer and the policy we defined for it long time > ago, if only for backward compatiblity, but for any other footers, > policy decision > such as "dedup by default" isn't something "am" should know about. OK happily that's exactly what v2 that I just posted does. Default S-o-b footer gets the existing policy. Any other footers are added on top without any tricky deduplication. -- MST