Does this mean that I can send a patch using git workflow as opposed to creating patch files.
> assuming that I am on my own branch git format-patch trunk —stdout > YETUS-001.patch >And you can apply with git am —signoff < YETUS-001.patch That way the committer does not have to write anything like committer or signed-off by since the patch file has a metadata of the author and git applies the correct values. Just making sure that this is indeed what Sean refers to in his email. Thanks Anu On 9/29/15, 10:37 AM, "Chris Nauroth" <[email protected]> wrote: >+1 > >I haven't worked this way before, but I like it! It sounds like we still >maintain 2 important pieces of metadata: contributor and >signoff/committer. I consider the latter important, because it helps me >identify which committers are really actively doing reviews right now, in >case I need to request a review directly. > >--Chris Nauroth > > > > >On 9/22/15, 9:19 PM, "Sean Busbey" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi folks! >> >>Now that we're going to start getting patches into our own repository, >>I'd like to discuss how we attribute authorship of patches from >>non-committers. Personally, I've really liked the way things work for >>git in the HBase community. >> >>The commit author is set to the contributor (which is a different >>piece of commit metadata than the one doing the committing). Then the >>committer uses the git "signed-off-by" to include their name in the >>commit message. >> >>I really like this because as a community maintainer I can easily >>parse the git history for information about contributions. (and check >>it against similar data in jira) >> >>What do other folks think? >> >>-- >>Sean >> > >
