Re: [PATCH] Documentation: git-tag '-m' implies '-a'
- From
- Dirk Süsserott <newsletter@dirk.my1.cc>
- Date
- Mar 25, 2008, 17:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <47E932B4.5060700@dirk.my1.cc>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080325013842.GB15607@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff, thanks for the advice and the corrections, I'll act on it. It was my first submission and I'm handicapped in the way that I'm using Windows. So I just pasted the patch into my Thunderbird window.
The git-send-email program doesn't work properly with Windows. Either the sendmail program isn't present (no shit sherlock ;-)) or the Net/SMTP.pm module isn't found. I'm currently writing a wrapper to bypass that. When I manage to figure the problem, I'll post a patch.
git-send-email for Windows doesn't accept the authorization switches (--smtp-user, --smtp-pass) (despite the docs), so I've either to patch it or use a wrapper that adds them.
Dirk
Jeff King schrieb:
Show 36 quoted lines
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 01:07:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > >> Thanks for tidying up. It makes my life easier. >> > > No problem. > > >>> - at least cc Junio on patch submissions to make sure he sees it >>> - sign off your patch (either with commit -s or format-patch -s). >>> >> Heh, and you did not sign it off when you forwarded? ;-) >> > > Heh. Believe it or not, that actually did occur to me. However, I'm not > really sure what it means to do that. As you have made clear in the > past, the signoff is _not_ "this looks good to me, please apply" but > rather "I am signing the Certificate of Origin." > > And while I can only assume that everything in such an obvious patch is > kosher, it is _not_ true that: > > - I created or have the right to submit it under an open source > license (DCO, part a) > - The contribution was provided to me by somebody else who certified > the above (DCO, part c) > > I'm not clear on what part (b) of the DCO means. Is it making a > judgement that says "even though I have no license on this, it is > clearly a derivative work of git, which is GPL'd, and therefore it is > GPL'd"? > > -Peff > >