Yep Anu, that's exactly correct.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Anu Engineer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >> >>
