If you look over git history, our current process is committer is Author and contributor name is added in parenthesis at the end of the first line of the commit message. No additional process is needed, nor changes to local configuration, if we stick to this practice.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Elliott Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd rather have people change their git settings to include the committer > rather than add additional process. Though that's just personal preference. > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think the author or signoff line should indicate the committer. Not > sure > > a precommit hook can do that, most committers have multiple emails and > dev > > boxes and I observe their identity can shift from commit to commit. > > > > I know that committer identity is available in git metadata, but it would > > be nice to have this information at a glance in other log views besides > > 'full', like '-p', or '--stat', etc. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Can we enforce the use of --signoff with a hook? If author email isn't > @ > > > apache.org then signoff stamp is required, something like this? > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > It's a little more work, but without the sign-off line you can still > > find > > > > the committer by doing "git log --formate=full" > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I noticed that commit and just sent something to private@ :-) I > > think > > > > it's > > > > > a fine practice, but there is no sign off line on that commit so > the > > > > > committer is not apparent. As long as we can know who committed the > > > patch > > > > > at a glance it sounds good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I just committed a message with 'git am' because the author took > > the > > > > > > trouble to write a sweet commit message. Others have been taking > > the > > > > > > trouble to write useful commit messages but up to this I've been > > just > > > > > > applying patches with patch with a commit message that is the > issue > > > > > number, > > > > > > subject, and author only rather than git apply or git am. > > > > > > > > > > > > On the tail of HBASE-4593, Misty is looking for clarification. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest that if contributor wrote a nice commit message that > > leads > > > > off > > > > > > with issue number and issue subject, going forward, we preserve > > their > > > > > work > > > > > > and apply using git am --signoff? > > > > > > > > > > > > You cowboys and cowgirls have any opinions? > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > > Hein > > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
