Re: [PATCH/RFC] rev-list: add --authorship-order alternative ordering

From: Elliott Cable <me@ell.io>
Date: Jun 6, 2013, 19:32 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPZ477O4DyAcd-eZp2UQhta61e6AeGZiTxPuXOcuEP0X+8wRAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vtxlbxcl7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Wow. That's my bad entirely. I apparently hallucinated a section suggesting that you “sign-off” commits that you'd reviewed, or something; and I'd completely skipped the section on certifying that you have legal rights to the work, because I'd *written* it, and didn't think it'd be relevant.

I feel like an idiot. Forgive me. I'll --signoff my next version of the patch. o7

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 28 quoted lines

> Elliott Cable <me@ell.io> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> elliottcable <me@ell.io> writes:
>>>> Thus, I've added an --authorship-order version of --date-order, which relies
>>>> upon the AUTHOR_DATE instead of the COMMITTER_DATE; this means that old commits
>>>> will continue to show up chronologically in-order despite rebasing.
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Missing sign-off.  Please see Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
>>
>> Will-do.
>>
>> I read that part, and was rather confused. At no point did I get the
>> idea that I should sign-off *my own initial commit*. Perhaps that part
>> of the documentation needs to be slightly re-written? Would that be a
>> welcome change?
>
> I fail to see what more needs to be clarified on top of what we
> already have; please re-read "(5) Sign your work" section, paying
> with special attention to:
>
>  - "YOU WROTE IT or otherwise have the right to pass it on".
>
>  - "the contribution was created in whole or in part BY ME and I
>    HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT".
>
> But perhaps you meant something else by "*my own initial commit*"???