From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 01:06:43 GMT Subject: Re: More builtin git-am issues.. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds writes: > but the failing cases have a comment by Andrew: > > [akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes] > Signed-off-by: Tang Chen > Cc: Xishi Qiu > Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu > Cc: Kamezawa Hiroyuki > Cc: Taku Izumi > Cc: Gu Zheng > Cc: Naoya Horiguchi > Cc: Vlastimil Babka > Cc: Mel Gorman > Cc: David Rientjes > Cc: [4.2.x] > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton > > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds > > ie that "[akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes]" makes git am > now decide that the previous block of text was not a sign-off block, > so it adds an empty line before adding my sign-off. But very obviously > it *was* a sign-off block. Ahh, OK, scratch what I said earlier. The user intended this to be sign-off block, but the convention append_signoff() was taught from very earlier days is that the sign-off block must consist of block of text all of which look like rfc2822 "keyword: value" header lines, and the comment thing makes it a non-conforming header. Perhaps A block of text at the end of the existing text could be a signature block. If all its lines that are rfc2822-like are at its end, then it is a sign-off block. Otherwise it is not. would allow the leading non-signature lines in the above example. If the comment line (which I would say should have been separated by a blank line from the signature block if only to make it easier to read the whole thing) were in the middle, e.g. > Signed-off-by: Tang Chen > Cc: Xishi Qiu > Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu > Cc: Vlastimil Babka > Cc: Mel Gorman > [akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes] > Cc: David Rientjes > Cc: [4.2.x] > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton that rule would still not think this is a signature block, but at that point, do we really want to consider such a block of text a signature block?