On Jul 6, 2012 9:20 AM, "Soulliere, Robert" < robert.soulli...@mohawkcollege.ca> wrote: > > Hi, > > I was hoping to do a lot of documentation committing in the next month I just wanted to check in about commit sign-off procedure as it relates to documentation under 3 scenarios: > > 1. An author sends me documentation in a format needing to be converted to asciidoc. I convert it and commit it to the repository -- Would it be OK for me to be the single sign-off on this commit using the commit option to indicate that there is an original author and my sign off. > e.g. git commit --author="Original Author <em...@address.com>"
Sounds good to me; this way the author gets credited in gitstats and the like. > 2. I make a few typo fixes or update the upgrade instructions to update version references -- Can these quick fixes be direct commits or do I need an additional sign-offs? I think the goal is to have commit processes that offer some value (like who wrote or changed what and why, so that we have a meaningful commit history and change log), not to force painful overhead. Also, the chance of a typo fix breaking the doc build seems low, so I don't see a great advantage to requiring a second sign-off in this case. > 3. I author a new section or chapter or do a massive overhaul of a section -- In this case, I would create working branch – make changes -- cherry pick commit – add pull request in launchpad – wait for review/sign-off – commit to main repo (or will someone else do the final commit?). > How many sign-offs should be required for documentation commits? Also, is there a time frame for waiting for sign-offs before I can just commit it without additional sign-off? I don't know if you need a second sign-off in this case, either. Given how few DIG committers there are, we wouldn't want to impede the progress of the docs just to keep a perfectly parallel commit process with the code. > Also if someone adds documentation from a different working branch and asks me to pull into the main repo, could I just do the cherry pick and commit to the main repo as a single sign-off, or do I follow a longer review process and go through launchpad? I would cherry-pick and commit. > My main goals is for documentation to be updated in a timely manner but to also follow the proper procedure for commits. I am concerned that we will have fewer sign-off persons to test and sign off on documentation changes compared to code commits. Agreed!