Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] am: let --signoff override --no-signoff

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 7, 2015, 09:29 UTC
Message-ID: <16ad6c2da8f85b9f5fc26ee6ebad944b@www.dscho.org>
In-Reply-To: <1438697331-29948-4-git-send-email-pyokagan@gmail.com>

Hi Paul,

On 2015-08-04 16:08, Paul Tan wrote:

Show 27 quoted lines

> diff --git a/builtin/am.c b/builtin/am.c
> index 0961304..8c95aec 100644
> --- a/builtin/am.c
> +++ b/builtin/am.c
> @@ -2151,8 +2169,9 @@ int cmd_am(int argc, const char **argv, const
> [...]
> char *prefix)
>  		OPT_BOOL('3', "3way", &state.threeway,
>  			N_("allow fall back on 3way merging if needed")),
>  		OPT__QUIET(&state.quiet, N_("be quiet")),
> -		OPT_BOOL('s', "signoff", &state.signoff,
> -			N_("add a Signed-off-by line to the commit message")),
> +		OPT_SET_INT('s', "signoff", &state.signoff,
> +			N_("add a Signed-off-by line to the commit message"),
> +			SIGNOFF_EXPLICIT),
>  		OPT_BOOL('u', "utf8", &state.utf8,
>  			N_("recode into utf8 (default)")),
>  		OPT_SET_INT('k', "keep", &state.keep,
> @@ -2265,6 +2284,9 @@ int cmd_am(int argc, const char **argv, const
> char *prefix)
>  
>  		if (resume == RESUME_FALSE)
>  			resume = RESUME_APPLY;
> +
> +		if (state.signoff == SIGNOFF_EXPLICIT)
> +			am_append_signoff(&state);
>  	} else {

This is clever, but I suspect there is now a chance for a double-signoff if we passed `--signoff` to the initial `git am` call and it went through without having to resume.

Or am I missing something?

Ciao, Dscho