Dear Olof Johansson,
In message C6505381-97AC-4E05-9CCA-6089F69964D6@gmail.com you wrote:
Please feel free to do that, but I consider this just adding line-noise, unless you _really_ express special approval.
Which sense would it make if I added a s-o-b to each and every commit I'm pulling in from anywhere?
You're not pulling it, you are applying it. And the s-o-b is used to show the paper trail of who has touched it. So all you should need to backtrack the source of the code change is the list of the s-o-bs.
What is the difference between a "git pull" from some remote repo and the "git am" of a patch posted on the mailing list? In both cases I do _not_ touch the patch, and the result looks the same, too.
S-o-b is not an approval of the technical merits of the change. It's a pure bookkeeping measure to tell where a piece of code came from and who handled it on the way.
If the "handling" is just a technical operation which does not modify a single bit of the content I see no reason to add lines of s-o-b. Hey, I use several stages of repositories, and a number or branches here and there. Should I every time I pull from here or cherry-pick from there or format-patch + am somewhere else add a s-o-b? This makes zero sense to me.
BUT in addition to this it's really useful for a newbie like me to see who to send a patch to, since it shows the list of maintainership (up to the first person that submits his work through git pulls, but that seems nonexistent for non-maintainers in u-boot anyway :)
Did you try looking at the list of custodians? http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Custodians
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk