James, There's no doubt the Sign-off-by is redundant (as GIT itself holds that information, reason why GH is still able to show the information without the sign-of-by stamp), however, I agree with your view around positive action and easy to refer as Bryan pointed.
Joe, Thanks for the clarification. If no-one opposes, I will update the Contributor Guide regarding requirement vs. recommended as it seems to have caused a small to confusion to some of the committers. If the message is that consistency in this space is not required, than lets reflect this in the documentation. On a side note, it may be worth to note that a "+1 before merge" model would sit in between CTR and RTC - which technically seems to require Consensus Approval (i.e. TTBOMK means 3 positive votes + lack of negative votes in ASF lingo). Formality of number aside, there's no doubt our model is working like a charm! :-) Cheers On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:49 AM, James Wing <[email protected]> wrote: > I recommend the practice. Although the signoff may not be authoritative, > it requires a positive action that suggests you purposefully merged the > commit, as opposed to commits you might have accidentally merged and > pushed. > > Thanks, > > James > >
