Greg, which of these do you use when the “contributor” is a committer? Remember the model here is that the author is never allowed to commit their own code.
Ralph > On Nov 19, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Apache Subversion project does something similar: > > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/conventions.html#crediting > > We have a tool ("contribulyzer") that analyzes them. It's pretty neat. > On Nov 19, 2015 1:57 PM, "Chris Nauroth" <cnaur...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> Some projects use the git Signed-off-by field in the commit log to >> differentiate the author from the reviewer. >> >> --Chris Nauroth >> >> >> >> >> On 11/19/15, 10:58 AM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >>> And there is another problem I have. Maybe it isn¹t true of all projects, >>> but the one I am involved with says the author can¹t commit his own code. >>> So the commit logs will not reflect who actually authored the code but >>> who reviewed it. >>> >>> I could probably tolerate RTC if I had to have the commit somewhere it >>> could be reviewed, I had to wait for the review and fix any defects and >>> then could commit the code myself (ideally even if no one actually >>> reviewed it). That process isn¹t really much different than what I do for >>> my larger commits anyway. But just submitting something for review and >>> then hoping someone reviews it and then hoping someone commits it takes >>> all the joy out of it for me. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>>> On Nov 19, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, that's a big problem with some RTC workflows. Using gerrit or >>>> github >>>> PRs makes the flow much easier -- for a trivial or small patch, the sort >>>> that a "drive-by" contributor typically contributes, there probably >>>> won't >>>> be any review comments. So, they just push the patch for review, and >>>> they >>>> can be out of the loop for the rest of it. If the patch requires small >>>> revisions (eg addressing a typo or something) I think it's fine for the >>>> reviewer to just make the change themselves and commit on behalf of the >>>> original author to avoid the issue you've raised. Most RTC workflows >>>> permit >>>> this kind of thing in my experience. >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
