On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:14:12PM +0100, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Barring any errors in my understanding of the matter, here's how it > works for git. > > git separates author from committer, so code attribution is done with > author, and "I verified this is sane" is done by committer. Those two > usually only ever differ when the user tells git commit that the author > was someone else than him/her self, or when rewriting history with git > rebase or similar. git am also maintains authorship (using the From: > line in emails), but sets $committer to the person running it, so when > you apply patches sent by email from someone else you get the code > attribution right by default. > > The Signed-off-by line is, in git, used as "I touched the code here and > agree that it may be included in the mothership repo and all future > releases" (the spirit of that sentence is also in > Documentation/SubmittingPatches). > > We also have Acked-by (as does the kernel, no? I think we inherited it > from there) to mean something along the lines of "I vote we include this", > but not always based on technical merit (ie, patches can have many acks > without having ever been tested). > > Suggested-by, Tested-by and Reported-by are used less often, not always > written in dash-form, but hopefully always self-explanatory ;-) What that doesn't tell me is how when sending an email carrying a patch one ensures the attribution is correct when loaded into git. Having messed about with it a bit it does seem that if one wants git to attribute the patch to junio I have to add a From: line to the top of the email payload. I'll resend so attributed. -apw - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
