From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: format-patch signoff argument no longer works Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:02:33 -0700 Message-ID: <7vejyayq46.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <93c3eada0605310332p19241861g466e1516a2aaf0df@mail.gmail.com> <93c3eada0605310411r712dab8au9b1c7d8ecb595a66@mail.gmail.com> <20060531112803.GB3877@spinlock.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Seth Falcon X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 31 21:03:01 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FlVxm-0005tw-03 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 21:02:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751786AbWEaTCf (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 15:02:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751788AbWEaTCf (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 15:02:35 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29]:6568 "EHLO fed1rmmtao10.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751786AbWEaTCe (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 15:02:34 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060531190233.ODKI18458.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Wed, 31 May 2006 15:02:33 -0400 To: git@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Seth Falcon writes: > Matthias Kestenholz writes: > >> * Geoff Russell (geoffrey.russell@gmail.com) wrote: >>> It appears to have got lost when the shell script got converted to C. >>> >> Yes, this was intentional. You should sign off your changes while >> committing (git commit -s|--signoff) A bit on this later, but first to clear one thing up... > When should one commit _without_ signoff? > > The obvious answer is: when one doesn't approve of the changes in the > commit... But in my usual workflow, commit means > works-for-me-I-think-it-is-good. :-) Please, calm down and read Documentation/SubmittingPatches, item (6), to understand what sign-off means. It does not have anything to do with the result of the commit "working". I do not use -s when making commits during my day-job, for example. We do not want to make sign-off the default. It has to be a concious act on the signer's part to add one. Otherwise it would not carry much weight. About the droppage of "format-patch -s", I have come to think of it as a mistake (yes, I can change my mind). Consider: * You are the leader of a group of people who hack on a part of the kernel, internally in your company. You and other developers make improvements and make commits, with "git commit -s". * As the in-company integrator, you maintain the canonical "company tree" by pulling from others in your group. * It's time to send good pieces to Linus and/or Andrew and as the group lead you are responsible for sending them out. The commits would have Sign-off's by the original committers, but as the contact person (representative) of your group, your name is better recognizable in the outside community, and as the leader of your group, it is a good practice for _you_ to vouch for what your group did. In that scenario, in addition to what "commit -s" gives us, it is handy for the person who is sending the patches out via e-mail to add his own sign-off. Now, we could do that by re-adding "format-patch -s" option, or alternatively we could add that to "send-email". We might want to do both ;-)