-----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