Re: [PATCH] Documentation: git-tag '-m' implies '-a'

["Dirk Süsserott" <newsletter@dirk.my1.cc>]

Jeff, thanks for the advice and the corrections, I'll act on it.
It was my first submission and I'm handicapped in the way that I'm
using Windows. So I just pasted the patch into my Thunderbird window.

The git-send-email program doesn't work properly with Windows.
Either the sendmail program isn't present (no shit sherlock ;-))
or the Net/SMTP.pm module isn't found. I'm currently writing
a wrapper to bypass that. When I manage to figure the problem,
I'll post a patch.

git-send-email for Windows doesn't accept the authorization
switches (--smtp-user, --smtp-pass) (despite the docs), so I've
either to patch it or use a wrapper that adds them.

Dirk


Jeff King schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 01:07:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>   
>> Thanks for tidying up.  It makes my life easier.
>>     
>
> No problem.
>
>   
>>>   - at least cc Junio on patch submissions to make sure he sees it
>>>   - sign off your patch (either with commit -s or format-patch -s).
>>>       
>> Heh, and you did not sign it off when you forwarded? ;-)
>>     
>
> Heh. Believe it or not, that actually did occur to me. However, I'm not
> really sure what it means to do that. As you have made clear in the
> past, the signoff is _not_ "this looks good to me, please apply" but
> rather "I am signing the Certificate of Origin."
>
> And while I can only assume that everything in such an obvious patch is
> kosher, it is _not_ true that:
>
>   - I created or have the right to submit it under an open source
>     license (DCO, part a)
>   - The contribution was provided to me by somebody else who certified
>     the above (DCO, part c)
>
> I'm not clear on what part (b) of the DCO means. Is it making a
> judgement that says "even though I have no license on this, it is
> clearly a derivative work of git, which is GPL'd, and therefore it is
> GPL'd"?
>
> -Peff
>
>