[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:48:44 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 |
On 02/26/2012 02:02 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Do you really want to start requiring a Signed-off-by line, now?
I don't care either way, but it's slightly less work without.
>> I explicitly avoid such lines as redundant when they merely repeat
>> what's on the Author: line.
>>
> I'm not truly sure about this; but:
>
> - many other projects (linux, git itself) seems to use them, and I
> believe there's a reason for this (even if I've failed to find it
> so far);
git explicitly documents that 'Signed-off-by' has no inherent meaning to
git itself, but rather, should be assigned a per-project meaning. Git
and Linux have assigned it the per-project meaning of 'I am in a legal
position to submit the portions of this commit that I touched'. But FSF
projects already have stricter copyright assignments, so we are already
guaranteed that any commits in an FSF project are in correct legal
standing without an S-o-B line.
Libvirt is an interesting middle ground - it doesn't require strict
copyright assignments (and it's Red Hat's risk if this causes problems
down the road), nor does it require a Signed-off-by line on commits; but
at the same time, no one deletes a line from any commit pushed, even if
the line is "redundant" with the author.
>
> - Ralf Wildenhues used the "Signed-off-by" as well (bit I never
> asked him why); Eric Blake uses them too (Eric, if you are reading,
> care to tell us why?);
Habit, because I've submitted to git before. But I can drop them, just
as easily, especially if we make it project policy (as was done on
coreutils - where you will notice that my commits there lack the line).
>
> - last but not least, I'd like to start using the various "Acked-by",
> "Reviewed-by", "Tested-by" etc. lines in the future as well, so having
> also a "Signed-off-by" line seems more consistent.
I don't care whether you require it, require it to be omitted, or (like
libvirt) leave it optional; as long as we document _this_ project's
policy, then people can live by the policy.
--
Eric Blake address@hidden +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed, Jim Meyering, 2012/02/25
- Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/25
- Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed, Jim Meyering, 2012/02/25
- Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/25
- [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages (was: Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed), Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/25
- [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages (was: Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid spurious failure when gcj is not installed), Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/25
- Re: [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages, Jim Meyering, 2012/02/26
- Re: [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/26
- Re: [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/26
- Re: [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages, Jim Meyering, 2012/02/26
- Re: [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages,
Eric Blake <=
- Re: [PATCH] hacking: document format for git commit messages, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/27