Re: [PATCH v3 00/56] Convert parts of refs.c to struct object_id

4 messages, 3 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH v3 00/56] Convert parts of refs.c to struct object_id

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:55

"brian m. carlson" [off-list ref] writes:
Changes from v2:
* Adopt Michael Haggerty's patch series that uses an adapter function.
* Squash some of these patches together where it makes sense in order to
  reduce the quantity of patches.

This does only slightly more than my original series, just in a
different way, with a larger number of much smaller patches.  If the
quantity of patches is too large for people's tastes, I can do a v4
based off of v2 that has less of this problem.
Thanks.  I think these all look good.  And clashes with in-flight
topics seem to be manageable ;-)

[PATCH 01/56] was authored by you but has Michael's sign-off, which
looked somewhat odd to me, though.

Re: [PATCH v3 00/56] Convert parts of refs.c to struct object_id

From: brian m. carlson <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:55

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:34:59PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
[PATCH 01/56] was authored by you but has Michael's sign-off, which
looked somewhat odd to me, though.
Yes, it does.  He picked it up from me, and signed off, and I took his
branch.  I don't believe he changed it, but I didn't check for certain.
So technically, although I wrote it, I also received it from him without
changing it, so both (a) and (c) of the DCO apply.
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Re: [PATCH v3 00/56] Convert parts of refs.c to struct object_id

From: Stefan Beller <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:04:56

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:40 PM, brian m. carlson
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:34:59PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
[PATCH 01/56] was authored by you but has Michael's sign-off, which
looked somewhat odd to me, though.
Yes, it does.  He picked it up from me, and signed off, and I took his
branch.  I don't believe he changed it, but I didn't check for certain.
So technically, although I wrote it, I also received it from him without
changing it, so both (a) and (c) of the DCO apply.
At least in the kernel, the sign offs are also used to track a patchs way
of life, so essentially whenever somebody touches that patch (either as
an author, or as a patch shoveling sub Lieutenant), you'd add a sign off.

So if we were to handle the sign offs just as the kernel people, I would
have assumed a sign-off block like

Sign-off: you
Sign off: Michael
Sign-off: you

as that would indicate that Michael did not author it from scratch but
based his work on yours. That's just my understanding of the sign off
process for linux and I guessed we'd follow a very similar process. But
no objections from me regarding the signing.

All patches have been
Skimmed-over-and-run-test-suite-by: Stefan Beller [off-list ref]
if that helps.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Re: [PATCH v3 00/56] Convert parts of refs.c to struct object_id

From: brian m. carlson <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 23:05:00

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:37:29AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:40 PM, brian m. carlson
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:34:59PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
[PATCH 01/56] was authored by you but has Michael's sign-off, which
looked somewhat odd to me, though.
Yes, it does.  He picked it up from me, and signed off, and I took his
branch.  I don't believe he changed it, but I didn't check for certain.
So technically, although I wrote it, I also received it from him without
changing it, so both (a) and (c) of the DCO apply.
At least in the kernel, the sign offs are also used to track a patchs way
of life, so essentially whenever somebody touches that patch (either as
an author, or as a patch shoveling sub Lieutenant), you'd add a sign off.

So if we were to handle the sign offs just as the kernel people, I would
have assumed a sign-off block like

Sign-off: you
Sign off: Michael
Sign-off: you

as that would indicate that Michael did not author it from scratch but
based his work on yours. That's just my understanding of the sign off
process for linux and I guessed we'd follow a very similar process. But
no objections from me regarding the signing.
If Junio would like to add my sign-off to the end, he's welcome to do
so:

Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <redacted>
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help