Re: [PATCH v3] doc: add caveat about turning off commit-graph
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 11, 2026, 01:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq8q9qwxrr.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <7eae7ad5-5b09-4069-aafe-571f3e345b83@app.fastmail.com>
"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:
Show 28 quoted lines
> On Thu, May 7, 2026, at 21:56, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> On 5/7/2026 3:42 PM, kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com wrote: >>> From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> >> >>> Range-diff against v2: >>> 1: 82faa72f7bf ! 1: fb5ba74ea3e doc: add caveat about turning off commit-graph >>> @@ Commit message >>> But this isn’t mentioned in the user-facing doc. Let’s mention it on >>> git-replace(1) and git-commit-graph(1). >>> >>> + Acked-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> >>> >>> ## Documentation/git-commit-graph.adoc ## >> In general, you don't need to do this. Junio will add these >> during his application of the series, if necessary. > > It’s certainly not necessary, yeah. :) > > I am basing this on a recollection of someone quoting this from > SubmittingPatches: > > Do not forget to add trailers such as `Acked-by:`, `Reviewed-by:` and > `Tested-by:` lines as necessary to credit people who helped your > patch, and "cc:" them when sending such a final version for inclusion. > > They said that this was outdated since Junio does it himself. But then > Junio replied and said that it’s good/better if the contributor does it.
I used to say "let me do this to skip one extra roundtrip" but I stopped saying so. Perhaps I should be a bit more explicit and stop being silently nice to contributors who do not follow the guidelines to the letter in order to unconfuse you and your friends. It actually is a tempting thought.
Show 13 quoted lines
> Well, this is another instance that I may be trying to be too > helpful and over extending myself, which does not make the process > scale well (the other one being the "one final resend after the > list reached a consensus"). > > If the authors collect Acks and Reviewed-by's and resend after the > list reached the concensus, it may take one extra iteration, but I > no longer have to keep track of these trailers myself, which could > be a big win. > > So, I dunno. > > In conclusion for now: I dunno. :)
I do not know either, but if we agree that everybody should do so themselves and I should refrain from applying the ones that lack Acks, I can adjust. There will be lot of unapplied patches left on the mailing list initially until the contributors adjust their behaviour, but in the long run it may be beneficial?