On 02/27/2012 04:48 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> 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 don't care whether you require it, require it to be omitted, or
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 trul
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/26/2012 10:02 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>
>> - 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);
>>
> Here it is -- point 12 at:
> https://github.com/torval
On 02/26/2012 10:02 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
> - 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);
>
Here it is -- point 12 at:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/7ada1dd6/Documentation
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 weak and out-of-date in
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 weak and out-of-date in this regard).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
