From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bert Wesarg Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Hacky version of a glob() driven config include Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 21:52:07 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1273180440-8641-1-git-send-email-avarab@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eli Barzilay , Heiko Voigt , Junio C Hamano To: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 07 21:52:16 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OATap-0008Tz-SQ for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 07 May 2010 21:52:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932179Ab0EGTwL convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 15:52:11 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:51106 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932160Ab0EGTwJ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 15:52:09 -0400 Received: by gyg13 with SMTP id 13so852199gyg.19 for ; Fri, 07 May 2010 12:52:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=n9frck5VSVGutgSwnzCqU5hb5xDMWerF4y1KrjFuTaY=; b=nx7+txhybGy2TxHRHeYLBiXsp4wn0YgsR687JAZXAeN4tQzVMcyfFo5thRf3sj9Cp/ /7JwI26fuZSZey6PeKRJTPCUHej0pTOmgjjoH4fzPrNCRz/wZnkINR1cWaW3WZlEWW9G Kwjtv1vJjxcOu3suk5TqyW/TZIChAxwmb4Fps= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DbPKnWzGDW4Jk6tKZyXACGYYQsFLObu6Edt6M93jpO6qzxkOyZBS8himh4n0orvjRL rmXqz3mn7BVyWUqGa8qBXX0Wrt9bxdrmCVuxnoEcE9fWbWnv2BYz7SnAzhSkgSc80mqr bZUvVrFz7aeGoj2Skz9cvN6oqc8y3tT8jIVGY= Received: by 10.231.191.68 with SMTP id dl4mr164663ibb.75.1273261927650; Fri, 07 May 2010 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.39.205 with HTTP; Fri, 7 May 2010 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 20:58, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:29, Bert Wesarg wrote: >> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 18:56, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason= wrote: >>> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 06:00, Bert Wesarg wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 23:14, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmas= on wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not-signed-off-by: =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason >>>> >>>> So you don't agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, don't= you? >>> >>> Signed-off-by is for "if you want your work included in git.git" >>> (according to Documentation/SubmittingPatches). I don't think this >>> patch is ready for inclusion as-is, but I wanted to solicit comment= s >>> on the general approach. >>> >> >> Can you please quote SubmittingPatches for your argumentation. > > I already did, but here's the full paragraph I quoted from, for > reference: > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- if you want your work included in git.gi= t, add a > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"Signed-off-by: Your Name " line to the > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0commit message (or just use the opt= ion "-s" when > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0committing) to confirm that you agr= ee to the Developer's > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Certificate of Origin > But where does the Developer's Certificate of Origin talks about non-legal aspects of patch submitting? E.g. correctness, quality, ... I think the part "if you want your work included in git.git" is very misleading in this paragraph, and I propose to remove it. > I'm not seeking to include this work as-is in Git, so I added a > Not-signed-off-by line to make that clear (as if all the bugs didn't > do that already). > > I do agree to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, but just read th= e > "Not-signed-off-by" as "you really don't want to apply this in its > current state". I'm asking for comments so that I can produce an > appliable patch, that one will have a Signed-off-by line. > And thats exactly where you mixed legal and technical aspects of patch submitting, and others may not (especially me, obviously). The S-o-b line has nothing to do with the technical aspect, or the quality, of the patch. Adding "Not-signed-off-by" (or even worse: changing it later to Signed-off-by) could actually mean that you stole the code from someone else. Bert