On Thursday 16 of October 2014 21:42:39 Timothy Pearson wrote:
> > On Thursday 16 of October 2014 21:14:26 Timothy Pearson wrote:
> >> > I have a question:
> >> >
> >> > I often process patches from Fran�ois, making adjustments as needed,
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> > then
> >> > commit. For such posts will be listed as an author Fran�ois and as
> >> > Signed-off
> >> > will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
> >>
> >> Actually he needs to sign off on them.  It gets a bit confusing because
> >> there are actually three authorship fields in GIT that we are interested
> >> in: author, signed-off-by, and committer.  In this case his name goes
> >> into
> >> author and signed-off-by, and your name goes into committer.  So when
> >> you
> >> process the patches, if he provided a signed-off-by line for that patch
> >> in
> >> Bugzilla then you copy that into the commit message on the last line of
> >> the commit message, separated by a blank line.
> >>
> >> As I am still phasing the CLA system in, and I trust the core team not
> >> to
> >> sue, include copyrighted code, etc., if he has not provided a
> >> signed-off-by line for the patches go ahead and commit them without a
> >> signed-off-by line.
> >>
> >> For developers with GIT accounts you can commit and sign off all in one
> >> step by passing the -s flag to git commit.  Just be aware that you are
> >> stating you have the legal right to license the commit when you do this;
> >> philosophically this is the same as before but the procedure is a bit
> >> more
> >> formal now.
> >>
> >> > Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same time by Fran�ois? If
> >> > so, how
> >> > should it be implemented technically?
> >>
> >> When he submits patches he should provide a signed-off-by line for that
> >> patch in the bugtracker.  If anyone outside of the core team submits a
> >> patch without a signed-off-by line for that patch in the bug report we
> >> need to request that they provide one--the patch itself does not have to
> >> be resubmitted, but the submitter needs to add a comment stating they
> >> are
> >> signing off on that patch and appending the appropriate signed-off-by
> >> line
> >> to that comment.
> >>
> >> > Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors who do not have commit
> >> > access?
> >> > For example, during the integration of the translations.
> >>
> >> Same as above; if patch is submitted via Email then the Email should
> >> contain the signed-off-by line.  It's always OK to reply to a patch
> >> submission and request that a signed-off-by line be provided.
> >>
> >> Does this make sense?  Basically we're just fixing the bookkeeping end
> >> of
> >> the project so that we know who authored, who owns, who released, and
> >> who
> >> committed anything and can thereby better avoid any potential legal
> >> issues.
> >>
> >> Tim
> >
> > Yes, I assumed that I start using '-s' at commit. I just did not know
> > what the
> > outcome will be using --author '...' together with '-s'.
>
> I honestly don't know what the outcome of that would be.  Probably best
> would be to either test it to see what happens or just manually add the
> appropriate signed-off-by line to the bottom of the commit message.
>
> If you do test it let us know how GIT handles those simultaneous flags!
>

Such was the command:

git commit --author "Fran�ois Andriot <francois.andriot@....>" -s -m "Test author � signoff"

And this is the result:

commit 24e312eaf69fbbdadea6d22f3e29a55951a133cb
Author:     Fran�ois Andriot <francois.andriot@....>
AuthorDate: Thu Oct 16 21:50:17 2014 +0200
Commit:     Sl�vek Banko <slavek.banko@....>
CommitDate: Thu Oct 16 21:50:17 2014 +0200

    Test author � signoff

    Signed-off-by: Sl�vek Banko <slavek.banko@....>


> > At the same time, I also hesitated over the procedure of processing
> > patches
> > that need to be corrected before commit. If I had to incorporate a patch
> > in
> > its original form and as a subsequent commit make the necessary changes?
>
> This StackOverflow answer handles this case well:
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/14044024
>

Oh, yeah, that's good.

> Tim
>

-- 
Sl�vek