* Re: git am and duplicate signatures
[not found] ` <xmqqwpiy5haf.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
@ 2016-08-30 17:07 ` Joe Perches
2016-08-30 17:37 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2016-08-30 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, LKML
(adding lkml)
On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 09:54 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> 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 <od@domain.com>
> > Acked-by: Random Developer <rd@domain.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Original Developer <od@domain.com>
> 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 (<foo>-by: [name] <address>)
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread