On 2015-06-18 at 23:25, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:26:32PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: [...] >> One could imagine some frankly, quite rare example where there is a >> team of people who votes on each commit before it gets sent out and >> where everyone is equal and there is no hierarchy. In that case, >> perhaps you could set the from field to a mailing list address. But >> honestly, how often is that *all* of the authors are completely >> equal[1]? > > For that case something like patchwork, phabricator, or gerrit seems > to be the logical tool to use, and should ideally leave a trace of > approvals and such in the resulting commit message(s). If the patch > management tool takes care of merging the commit(s), it can be harder > to misattribute signed-off/reviewed-by/etc, which is a good thing. Doesn't Gerrit (at least) use trailer-like structured *notes* in the 'reviews' category (i.e. refs/notes/reviews ref) to store information about review process? > You could of course use multiple (everybody makes their own) commits, > where you risk breaking bisectability and avoid the need for equal > co-authorship support. In pair programming such intermediate commits > will quite often be fixups, and when you attempt to squash the fixups > for bisectability's sake, you may get a desire for co-authorship of > the resulting commit. Hmmm... I didn't think about the problem of attributing authorship for squashed commits. Though here multiple 'author' headers, or multiline 'author' header would be a better match than 'coauthor' header (which itself doesn't need, I think, the date filed, or does it?) [This is sent from Thunderbird news, so it should be all right] -- Jakub Narębski -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in