On 02/26/2012 08:53 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> On 02/25/2012 08:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>
>>> But I should definitely improve HACKING and have it document the
>>> standards and best practice for commit logs (since the GCS are sadly
>>> weak and out-of-date in this regard).
>>>
>> And here is my attempt. WDYT? I will push in a couple of days if there
>> is no objection.
>>
> ...
>> +
>> + Finally, here you can thank people that motivated of helped the
>
> s/of/or/
>
Fixed, thanks.
>> + change. So, thanks to John Doe for bringing up the issue, and to
>> + J. Random Hacker for providing suggestions and testing the patch.
>> +
>> + <detailed list of touched files>
>> +
>> + Signed-off-by: A. U. Thor <a.u.t...@example.org>
>
BTW, I now notice this is incomplete and confusing:
- this line shouldn't be entered manually, but rather automatically
by using "git commit -s" (ans this pertains to the "using git"
section);
- if the committer and the author are different, both should add their
"Signed-off-by" lines
For this round, I'll just remove the line. The issue with "Signed-off-by"
can be addressed in follow-up patches anyway.
> Do you really want to start requiring a Signed-off-by line, now?
> 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);
- 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?);
- 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.
Regards,
Stefano
