Re: Who uses Signed-off-by and DCO?

From: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Date: Jun 12, 2009, 19:18 UTC
Message-ID: <zcwHUAotNPBrTDFNEkfJbIprL0vwx_PJ65xUGwV0moW81e1bhyxgMg@cipher.nrlssc.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <1244818580-sup-60@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca>

Ben Walton wrote:

Show 40 quoted lines

> Excerpts from Jeff King's message of Fri Jun 12 10:48:57 -0400 2009:
>> [any reason not to keep this on the git list?]
> 
> ...no, I just forget to set the CC.
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:36:46AM -0400, Ben Walton wrote:
>>
>>> I've aliased 'ci' to 'commit -s', and people either use the alias or
>>> are encouraged to add the -s (it is by convention only, after all).
>>> We've then setup the root shell such that $USER is leveraged to source
>>> in some personalized shell when su is used.  This is where we set
>>> GIT_COMMITTER_* on a per-admin basis.  People not doing that edit the
>>> SoB line while editing the commit message...this fails with 'ci -m'.
>> Makes sense. I have a similar setup where people could be identified by
>> the ssh keys they use to log in, but I have never gotten around to
>> setting up something automated.
>>
>> I suspect SoB may be more convenient than GIT_AUTHOR_* in your scenario
>> just because you can tweak the former in the editor, as you note (and it
>> sounds like it's possible to not have the other variables set up
>> properly in your setup).
> 
> It is easier from that perspective, but since nothing is forcing the
> use of -s, we'd have the same compliance if we wanted to ask people to
> use --author (or set the proper environment).
> 
>>> Actually, I'm still wavering on which I'd prefer.  At this point,
>>> since git is still fairly new for us in this capacity, we're feeling
>>> our way through things.  I went with COMMITTER instead of AUTHOR
>>> though since that tends to stand out more in `git log` (at least to my
>>> eyes).  Since we're not a finger pointing group :), things like `git
>> I would argue that you should do the opposite. AUTHOR is really about
>> "who wrote this change" and COMMITTER is about "who put this change into
>> the repo". So to me, "Bob wrote the change, logged in as root@box2, and
>> committed" should be AUTHOR=Bob, COMMITTER=root@box2.
> 
> Your described usage is more semantically correct.  It may make sense
> for us to switch to AUTHOR, so that in the future we could pinpoint
> changes with less hassle.  I'll be discussing this with my colleagues
> shortly.

We use a shared account for updating a specific git repository. I have this bit of shell in the .bash_profile of that account to automatically prompt and set GIT_AUTHOR_NAME and GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL when someone tries "git commit':

_setup_git_ident ()
{
   local userid
   local ypentry

   while read -p "Your Real Login ID (not \"$LOGNAME\")> " userid
   do
       ypentry=$(ypmatch "$userid" passwd) || continue
       break
   done

   oldIFS=$IFS
   IFS=:
   set -- $ypentry
   IFS=$oldIFS

   GIT_AUTHOR_NAME=${GIT_AUTHOR_NAME:-"$5"}
   GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=${GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL:-"$1@"$(dnsdomainname)}

   export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
}

_run_git ()
{
   if [ "x$1" = "xcommit" ] &&
      [ -z "$GIT_AUTHOR_NAME" -o -z "$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL" ]
   then
       _setup_git_ident
   fi

   git "$@"
}

alias git=_run_git