From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932555AbcH3RH4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:07:56 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0127.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.127]:60611 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758496AbcH3RHy (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:07:54 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:982:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1431:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1542:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1981:2194:2198:2199:2200:2393:2553:2559:2562:2687:2693:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3354:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:7903:7904:7974:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11473:11658:11783:11914:12438:12740:13439:13894:14181:14659:14721:21080:21433:30003:30029:30054:30070:30083:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:4,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: lead71_7ebcd24cfcb37 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3002 Message-ID: <1472576869.5512.98.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: git am and duplicate signatures From: Joe Perches To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git , LKML Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:07:49 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1472573556.5512.93.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (adding lkml) On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 09:54 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Joe Perches writes: > > git-am -s will avoid duplicating the last signature > > in a patch. > > > > But given a developer creates a patch, send it around for > > acks/other signoffs, collects signatures and then does > > a git am -s on a different branch, this sort of sign-off > > chain is possible: > > > > Signed-off-by: Original Developer > > Acked-by: Random Developer > > Signed-off-by: Original Developer > Both correct and allowing the earlier one duplicated as long as > there is somebody/something else in between is deliberate. linux-kernel has a script (scripts/checkpatch.pl) that looks for duplicate signatures (-by: [name]
) Should the last Signed-off-by: in the commit log be excluded from this check? > > Should there be an option to avoid duplicate signatures > > in a sequence where an author can git-am the same patch? > I dunno.  The way "Signed-off-by" is handled is designed > specifically to support the meaning of that footer, namely to record > where it originated and whose hands it passed, used in the kernel > and Git land.  Other projects certainly may have need for footers > that denote different things that want different semantics (e.g. Who > authored it and who cheered on it), but that is outside the scope of > the "Signed-off-by" supported by "am -s" and "commit -s". > > Support for more generic footers was supposed to come when the > "interpret-trailers" topic started, but the author of the topic > seems to have lost interest before the mechanism has become ready to > be integrated in the workflow commands like "am", "commit", "rebase" > etc., which is unfortunate. > > > > > sequencer.c:append_signoff() has a flag for APPEND_SIGNOFF_DEDUP > Yes, I think this is one of the warts we talked about getting rid of > but haven't got around to it.  It is there because "format-patch -s" > was incorrectly written to dedup Signed-off-by: from anywhere in its > early implementation and to keep the same behaviour.  We should drop > that flag from append_signoff() function.