From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Adding Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags to other peoples commits Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:18:43 -0700 Message-ID: <7v7i8ekez0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vfxn3jqt9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alex Bennee , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 11 23:20:42 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Kolt9-0003Zu-Tq for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:20:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753851AbYJKVT2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:19:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751667AbYJKVT2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:19:28 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:41574 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750794AbYJKVT1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:19:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6256DFD5; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 131A96DFC3; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:18:46 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:06:48 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4854333E-97DA-11DD-916D-1E1F86D30F62-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > Color me puzzled. You said in another mail that you think this is the > task for the MUA. Not really. I said that I think people usually do this in MUA with the current system. I did not mean to say that I think such a partition of jobs between commit and MUA is ideal. >> This is a bit tangent, but perhaps rebase needs a hook so that users can >> strip certain tags automatically from the commit log messages (e.g. >> things like Reviewd-by: and Tested-by: become less trustworthy when you >> rebase; S-o-b: becomes somewhat less trustworthy when you "edit" in >> rebase-i; etc). > > Maybe. I am not really convinced of the S-o-b. You kept stressing that > the SOB is not about validity, but a statement that the patch is > intellectually proper or some such (IOW it means something like "Darl, > forget it"). And the point of origin does not change, even if you rebase > the commit. The "somewhat less trustworthy" kicks in when you "edit" in rebase-i if you change the tree that gets recorded. You are right that it is irrelevant if you ran rebase-i to only edit the commit log message.