Hi, On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > Karl Hasselstr?m <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On 2008-06-04 11:16:46 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > > > > > That feels really funny, given that the guy running git-am _is_ > > > > > the committer, not whoever provided some extra headers to the > > > > > mailbox. > > > > > > > > Yes, the implementatation does not make sense for public patch > > > > handling, but if you do various things locally with git-rebase or > > > > git-am (pack picking from another repo), you may consider it useful. > > > > > > But still, you're creating new commits, so they should have your name > > > on them. > > > > Yes, if you are _creating_ *commits*, then you are *committer*, isn't it? > > I agree with that, but if you just manage patches and you want to keep > commit history and change only hash numbers, it's an option. Nothing else. > It's just tool extension and users have to cleverly decide if it's worth > to use it or not. I think that - what you want to do is better done with git fast-export; <edit>; git fast-import, than with git porcelain, and - you hopefully do _not_ want to recommend your workflow (and bless it with porcelain support), because - as has been pointed out several times now, you _are_ the committer, and you seem to want to lie there. Ciao, Dscho -- 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
