From: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
To: "Phillip Wood" <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>,
"Li Chen" <me@linux.beauty>, "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] rebase, am: add --reviewby option
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 12:39:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fdf7a827-d8ca-4edc-8427-a2c6eb470e1a@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0c4721c6-9ca9-41b4-a2aa-39f521d66426@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 7, 2025, at 12:26, Phillip Wood wrote:
> On 07/05/2025 11:17, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> Hi Li
>>
>> On 07/05/2025 07:46, Li Chen wrote:
>>>
>>> Some projects require every commit to carry a Reviewed-by: line
>>> for accountability, much like the kernel requires Signed-off-by:.
>>> A first‑class option keeps that workflow “out of the box”; otherwise
>>> people need to define an alias such as
>>>
>>> [alias]
>>> rbr = rebase --trailer "Reviewed-by: $GIT_AUTHOR_NAME
>>> <$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL>"
>>>
>>> which is functional but less convenient.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate your further thoughts on whether a dedicated
>>> flag(--reviewby) is acceptable, or whether we should drop it and rely
>>> solely on
>>> the generic --trailer interface.
>>
>> I think adding support for --trailer is a good idea and if we do that we
>> don't need --reviewby. The existence and implementation of --signoff is
>> largely a historical artifact - I'm not sure we'd make the same choices
>> if we were thinking about adding it today. Different projects have
>> different requirements and I don't think it is sensible to add a new
>> option catering to the different demands of each project.
>
> It might be worth thinking about how we could extend the trailer option
> so that it uses the committer identity if there is no value specified
> which would reduce the pain of adding things like Reviewed-by:
That could be confusing for people who use trailers for
non-ident metadata.
I was wondering if `git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT` could be used. But
that prints a Unix timestamp with timezone as well. (I don’t really
understand why after reading that part of the manual)
--
Kristoffer Haugsbakk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-07 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-06 12:57 [RFC PATCH 0/2] rebase: support --trailer and add --reviewby Li Chen
2025-05-06 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] rebase, am: add --reviewby option Li Chen
2025-05-06 18:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-05-07 6:46 ` Li Chen
2025-05-07 10:17 ` Phillip Wood
2025-05-07 10:26 ` Phillip Wood
2025-05-07 10:39 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk [this message]
2025-05-07 13:38 ` Phillip Wood
2025-05-07 17:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-05-06 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] rebase: support --trailer Li Chen
2025-05-08 14:17 ` Phillip Wood
2025-05-08 15:55 ` Li Chen
2025-05-08 15:58 ` phillip.wood123
2025-05-08 16:29 ` Phillip Wood
2025-05-16 5:42 ` Li Chen
2025-05-16 10:04 ` Phillip Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fdf7a827-d8ca-4edc-8427-a2c6eb470e1a@app.fastmail.com \
--to=kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=me@linux.beauty \
--cc=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).