From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:56:07 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] U-Boot git usage model In-Reply-To: <20121013222545.DBD13203AF9@gemini.denx.de> References: <20121010204054.6bca1ffc@lilith> <1349974486.6903.5@snotra> <20121011191658.43a0df72@lilith> <50770155.20700@wwwdotorg.org> <20121011203003.02f27b2d@lilith> <20121013193003.613802029CF@gemini.denx.de> <5079D95E.4070609@ti.com> <20121013222545.DBD13203AF9@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <507C4E37.8000000@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/13/12 15:25, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom, > > In message <5079D95E.4070609@ti.com> you wrote: >> >> While also IANAL (and I try and stay out of these discussions), >> paging around in the kernel log it sure seems like Linus and >> akpm both add S-O-B when they git am something in (perhaps why >> there is git am --signoff?) but not when it comes via pull >> request. In other words, up until the point it goes into >> intended-to-be-pulled-somehow-someway git, whomever is >> presenting the work adds one (or more) to say I (we) worked on it >> and yes, applies as well as the person bringing it in (I touch >> this and believe it to be). > > Yes, git am has such an option. But git fetch (or pull) does not. > I see no technical difference if someone provides me a patch as > such, or in form of a git repository with this patch applied so I > can just "git fetch" from it. In both cases the result would be > exactly the same: I add the patch to my local repository. But in > one case I am supposed to sign it (and tools offer me options to > do so), but in the other case I cannot do that, even if I wanted? I will not claim the kernel practice to be 100% consistent, but yes. git am --signoff, git pull/merge and no -s in merge commits seems to be the practice. Perhaps we should stop saying we follow the kernel process, link to it as useful background, but then document what we actually want / do which is only require new S-O-B on code modification, and allow custodians to add their own they want for tracking or otherwise ease of not having to remember a different workflow for kernel vs U-Boot? - -- Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQfE43AAoJENk4IS6UOR1WKEUP/i2Ez8T+zv872jq6hjuhGhiE xCdrc2+npXHx/DguOkHIQqFRPQwlKaAbaGgNLXFWdIHipUcuZlUI1sraLDiQJ0un fToNRqlts0N/nXgwOMMBn13/aihSiGrOy6MvYB0RhFLZ5FVBXxdY3QXc6rOfFrom 45A+60T4VUmghyuoa3I5Oc+H9PEyvPG6BgVFm5JtwB6oPi7KypNOx0pSnv5z7uJ8 JkiLeWDlXag4VJyXFLbf2xOQRFgbFX8EgQcRXOWDjXet1lzXjP5sA9qVnYFMVFHJ AANtj9XFpQft6CK1Wfyq2+9fVNoqQtdqmvjhNbuqJK1vehZrpL4//tO4O++eynnP NlYxtSUDFLeWC/qyksdda02V5Gwme7pA3aMGUFU+VBgPrzAV2aCaseiOxKND//ni MSX+KkBUHy0l8kV7TnwuZtIV+fEvvOkYLD3KMzYxa98h7hbMpUIEa8Ldhkjyw3qx GrzEQ59xHV6stE2/nw++J30rzlxMrnavUU6ato25GcpSDIH2yPzDargrIBtDSteP tHFLfsj8buHx8csylaecHc+qlICA8JshbMcYkYQpzOIKYI+6M6sJOWFeXY9xrIdg b3zjZeJk6MRhU7cdv+q1JfPxmgXKrJ/51taimYJWH1b3saZXS4fEHhshPvbhZ5Sq 5PFd5XVPr+IkrvBKSfFT =5YMo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----