"Pat Maddox" <pergesu@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > And finally, when I experimented with doing a pull instead of > cherry-pick, it listed the original author as the committer instead of > myself. I think you're absolutely right that the burden should be on > them, so I can tell them to create a clean commit branch and just pull > from it, but I still need to be listed as the committer. Well, at that point, you are not the committer for their changes on their clean history, and you shouldn't expect to be recorded as such. Your contribution to the project might still be recorded as the committer of the merge commit that pulled their contributions in, though. Any history is just as valid as your integration branch's history. There may be hundreds of potential histories in the universe --- each and every contributor, anybody who clones and plays with the project may create his own history. Each contributor in their repository will be commiting their changes and building their histories. If one of these alternative histories is so agreeable for you that makes you happy to pull from it, that means the creator of that history did extra work to keep it clean (or rebuilt it to look like clean). Give the contributor the credit for his own segment of the history when you merge from him. Among these many alternate histories, yours may happen to be the one many people consider more authoritative than others', but other than that, you are not any more special than them. That's what distributed means. -- 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
