Hi, On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:19:47AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > I wonder how we are supposed to use this trailer in the Git project, > > > in particular in combination with Signed-off-by. Should all > > > (co)authors sign off as well? Or will Co-authored-by imply > > > Signed-off-by? > > > > I think we have been happy with (1) a comment at the end of the log > > message that says X worked together with Y and Z to produce this > > patch, and (2) the trailer block that has S-o-b: from X, Y and Z, > > without any need for Co-authored-by: trailer so far, and I do not > > see any reason to change it in this project. > > One advantage to making a machine-readable version is that tools on the > reading side can then count contributions, etc. For instance: > > https://github.com/git/git/commit/69f272b922df153c86db520bf9b6018a9808c2a6 > > shows all of the co-author avatars, and you can click through to their > pages. FWIW I really like this. It bugged me ever since that GitMerge talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usQgAy8YDVA) that we did not have any standardized way to document co-authored commits. > > If other projects wants to use such a footer, that's their choice, > > but I am fairly negative to the idea to open the gate to unbounded > > number of new options for new trailer lines. We do not even have > > such options like --acked=<acker>, --reported=<reporter>, for the > > trailers that are actively used already (and to make sure nobody > > misunderstands, I do not think it is a good idea to add such > > individual options). > > Yeah, I'd agree that we should start first with a generic trailer line. > There might be some advantage to building trailer-specific intelligence > on top of that (for instance, it would be nice for coauthor trailers to > expand names the way --author does). But that can come after, and might > not even be in the form of specific command-line options. E.g., if the > coauthor trailer could be marked in config as "this is an ident", then > we we would know to expand it. And the same could apply to acked, > reported, etc. Yep, and we have to start somewhere. I think this patch is a good start. FWIW I would not even mind introducing the synonym `--co-author` for `--coauthor`. But that's just a very minor suggestion. Ciao, Dscho
