From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outbound3-va3-R.bigfish.com (outbound-va3.frontbridge.com [216.32.180.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.bigfish.com", Issuer "*.bigfish.com" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E7EDDE1C for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:05:07 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <475B858B.9010900@am.sony.com> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:04:59 -0800 From: Geoff Levand MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jerry Van Baren Subject: Re: Stupid git question: adding acked-by References: <475B7B41.4000505@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <475B7B41.4000505@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 12/08/2007 09:21 PM, Jerry Van Baren wrote: > OK git gurus, this is something I have not figured out: the best way to > add acked-by (or additional signed-off-by) lines to git patches. > > What I'm talking about is when I've applied a patch to my repo and > published the change on the list and get an "acked-by" back. By the > time I get the ack, the acked patch may be several patches deep. My > current technique is to reset the repo, edit the patch(es) to add the > "acked-by" lines, and then re-apply the patches. PITA and probably the > stupidest way. > > Stacked git should work (effectively does the same thing but more > gracefully), but I have not gone that route yet. > > There must be a better way, if only I could find the right (of 137) > git-* command... I keep patches in a repo. I just update the patch header and commit. -Geoff