From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA61720A17 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:27:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751850AbdAWX1X (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:27:23 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54868 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751445AbdAWX1W (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:27:22 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6701F63B32; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:27:21 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=rJbHTnocjyuZSXD3VPr+uZv45Tg=; b=E5jTBe /b6stImOcMsQUMfFNP934S5rWrb/35quQ/R9mWHUII9B4gM8KfR1u6GjZt0yjPFA SN7ADa21skxK7rySZaBezLB+9KSPkLMp5eiuufYCMwEMj0allJHwYGEW+boFkNZD ejgG5QMvZ7e+0jSS7ppYBuCmh0ASDewqdVdZc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=pM7ALUO/3zoD89D2nXswwmOM7R2+8Yjh DaqSz5+D9sjz+nIeAk3dpzXuQLGXej9iSUXSaX6Ob+D+sgAo1g4OEE+VLaQFHXJ0 x3+jlAcAiSNAM5kD4giI+5J0msVCSXuhnNp423b4NhUYRgeCgmObXnD+eIuFFF61 MnY/tkfXox4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAD363B31; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1B9563B30; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:27:20 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Giuseppe Bilotta Cc: Git List Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am References: <20170121104904.15132-1-giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:27:19 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Giuseppe Bilotta's message of "Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:35:38 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7CAEC37E-E1C3-11E6-9444-A7617B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Giuseppe Bilotta writes: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Giuseppe Bilotta writes: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> >>>> Should we plan to extend this to the interactive backend that is >>>> shared between rebase -i and rebase -m, too? Or is this patch >>>> already sufficient to cover them? >>> >>> AFAIK this is sufficient for both, in the sense that I've used it with >>> git rebase -i and it works. >> >> That is a good news and at the same time a bit awkard one ;-) >> >> The mention of "passed to 'git am'" twice in the documentation and >> help text would lead people to think "rebase -i" would not be >> affected and (1) would need more work to do so, or (2) the user does >> not want "rebase -i" to be unaffected for whatever reason, and gets >> surprised to see that it actually does get affected. > > I'm not sure I follow. If the user doesn't want to signoff during a > rebase, they can simply not pass --signoff. If they do, they can not > pass it. Am I missing something? alias. Which also means that there needs to be --no-signoff option that can be given to countermand an earlier --signoff, if a user did [alias] rb = rebase --signoff and wants to disable it one time only with $ git rb --no-signoff > >> In any case, will queue as-is so that we won't lose the patch while >> waiting for people to raise their opinions. > > Thanks. Thanks. The final version would also need tests, so it may be a good time to start thinking about what aspect of this feature wants to be protected against future breakages.