Re: [PATCH/RFC] Hacky version of a glob() driven config include

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2010, 18:58 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTilG5OGjQcd1Vd1CdyOibFh4Po6jdfvSRNidrRzh@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilp0d28QMs_K7cVrfqmkzeqs8FTJbU1oeuUy7V6@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:29, Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:56, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 06:00, Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 23:14, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not-signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> So you don't agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, don't you?
>>
>> Signed-off-by is for "if you want your work included in git.git"
>> (according to Documentation/SubmittingPatches). I don't think this
>> patch is ready for inclusion as-is, but I wanted to solicit comments
>> on the general approach.
>>
>
> Can you please quote SubmittingPatches for your argumentation.

I already did, but here's the full paragraph I quoted from, for reference:

	- if you want your work included in git.git, add a
	  "Signed-off-by: Your Name <you@example.com>" line to the
	  commit message (or just use the option "-s" when
	  committing) to confirm that you agree to the Developer's
	  Certificate of Origin

I'm not seeking to include this work as-is in Git, so I added a Not-signed-off-by line to make that clear (as if all the bugs didn't do that already).

I do agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, but just read the "Not-signed-off-by" as "you really don't want to apply this in its current state". I'm asking for comments so that I can produce an appliable patch, that one will have a Signed-off-by line.