Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Color me puzzled. You said in another mail that you think this is the > task for the MUA. Not really. I said that I think people usually do this in MUA with the current system. I did not mean to say that I think such a partition of jobs between commit and MUA is ideal. >> This is a bit tangent, but perhaps rebase needs a hook so that users can >> strip certain tags automatically from the commit log messages (e.g. >> things like Reviewd-by: and Tested-by: become less trustworthy when you >> rebase; S-o-b: becomes somewhat less trustworthy when you "edit" in >> rebase-i; etc). > > Maybe. I am not really convinced of the S-o-b. You kept stressing that > the SOB is not about validity, but a statement that the patch is > intellectually proper or some such (IOW it means something like "Darl, > forget it"). And the point of origin does not change, even if you rebase > the commit. The "somewhat less trustworthy" kicks in when you "edit" in rebase-i if you change the tree that gets recorded. You are right that it is irrelevant if you ran rebase-i to only edit the commit log message. -- 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
