On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> > But even without that, I still think format-patch is a reasonable time
> > to do it. It is the time when I proof-read my commit message and patch
> > in its final form, and think "do I really want to send this?".
> But it is not like "I cannot sign off because I think it is still
> iffy".

No, that is not the particular reason in my case, but I think I
explained other reasons why "format-patch -s" is not a wrong workflow.

> >> But your point still stands; "commit -s" will not see through that
> >> official trick either ;-).
> >
> > Yes. :)
> Actually, no.  "commit -s" does not have any need to see through it.
>       ... hack hack hack ...
>         $ git commit -a -s
>         ... editor opens, you see your Sign-off at the end, with
>         ... the cursor sitting on the first line
>         ... edit the title, move to the line below the Sign-off,
>         ... and do the "---\n\n * comment" thing.
> And this survives "rebase -i" (but not "format-patch | am" for
> obvious reasons).

Yes, if your particular workflow is to signoff the very first time you
commit. But it would not work for:

 ... hack hack hack ...
 $ git commit -a
   ... make a note after "---" ...

 ... hack hack hack ...
 ... OK, looks good, ready to signoff ...
 $ git commit --amend -s

So it can work, but it is workflow dependent, and in general is a little
flaky with the automagic signoff. You may want to signoff later for a
variety of reasons, not the least of which is that you forgot to type
"-s" the first time.

> So I take it back.  The time you do the "git commit" for the very
> first time for this change that may need to be rerolled number of
> times is the right time to say "-s".

If you remember to type it. :)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to