Paul Campbell [off-list ref] writes:
From 72fc84b6e5085b328cc90e664c9f85a1f5cde36c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Cartwright <redacted>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:06 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 01/19] spell checking
---
contrib/subtree/git-subtree.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
I won't repeat these for other 18 patches, but please:
- drop the first "From <object name> <magic timestamp>" line which
is not part of the patch (it is only meant to help people who
maintain the "file(1)" and "magic(5)");
- keep "From: <author name> ..." and "Date: " lines for other
peoples' patches you are forwarding (they can be dropped for your
own patches); and
- drop "Subject: " as that is the same as the subject of the e-mail
message.
- fix the subject to make it clear that the change is for
contrib/subtree.
"spell checking" [*1*] in the output of "git shortlog v1.8.1..",
together with other 600+ patches' titles, will not help the
reader to see how much activity each area had and who worked in
what area.
- have the authors sign-off their patches, and then add yours as
the person who is forwarding other peoples' patches (see
Documentation/SubmittingPatches).
- Cc the area maintainer (I thought it was David Greene?)
if these patches are meant to become part of git.git eventually.
Thanks.
[Footnote]
*1* Besides, a patch can never be "spell *checking*". It would be
"typofix" after the author did a 'spell checking' ;-)
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Paul Campbell [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
From 72fc84b6e5085b328cc90e664c9f85a1f5cde36c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Cartwright <redacted>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:33:06 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 01/19] spell checking
---
contrib/subtree/git-subtree.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
I won't repeat these for other 18 patches, but please:
Thanks and apologies. All noted, although I have a question below.
- drop the first "From <object name> <magic timestamp>" line which
is not part of the patch (it is only meant to help people who
maintain the "file(1)" and "magic(5)");
- keep "From: <author name> ..." and "Date: " lines for other
peoples' patches you are forwarding (they can be dropped for your
own patches); and
- drop "Subject: " as that is the same as the subject of the e-mail
message.
- fix the subject to make it clear that the change is for
contrib/subtree.
"spell checking" [*1*] in the output of "git shortlog v1.8.1..",
together with other 600+ patches' titles, will not help the
reader to see how much activity each area had and who worked in
what area.
I'd wanted to avoid changing the original author's work as much as
possible. Wrong choice on my part.
- have the authors sign-off their patches, and then add yours as
the person who is forwarding other peoples' patches (see
Documentation/SubmittingPatches).
Four of the eight original authors now have dead email addresses. As I
found out when I started getting the mail bounces when I started
sending these patches out. Would it be acceptable for those patches to
leave the From line, add a Based-on-patch-by and then sign of myself?
I've really only done enough on top of the cherry-picking to get round
any conflicts.
- Cc the area maintainer (I thought it was David Greene?)
if these patches are meant to become part of git.git eventually.
I knew that and forgot. Can I blame this on my head-cold? No?
Thanks.
[Footnote]
*1* Besides, a patch can never be "spell *checking*". It would be
"typofix" after the author did a 'spell checking' ;-)
--
Paul [W] Campbell
Paul Campbell wrote:
Four of the eight original authors now have dead email addresses. As I
found out when I started getting the mail bounces when I started
sending these patches out. Would it be acceptable for those patches to
leave the From line, add a Based-on-patch-by and then sign of myself?
It's always nice to get the original author's sign-off, but if you can
certify what's stated in the DCO1.1 (from
Documentation/SubmittingPatches) then just adding your sign-off is
fine. Please still keep the original authorship in that case, and no
need to add a Based-on-patch-by line.
Thanks,
Jonathan