From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1BF01FA14 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932744AbdDQHM7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:12:59 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63348 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932719AbdDQHM5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:12:57 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853EF696AE; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:12:56 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BjuOXRbP8CD6WvHqlX8nkKM4BGU=; b=uhCpml iYL5Gwd8HbHB/HsrOGtOuGFoiuHsF7rxbNDUJxijTPTLAiri4LK4i1Xo9v0AUWUH eaekqSA+gQO7hx7lnPRRlxUbVx2aBD6YnOte2mVh4DvfNWZ42TJXHdj53iF2Dndx BE7Gjc5fsV+pbgtYfl1FD2bxsGw6A56EyeSSk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Vj0Y9Df4je4zN6Obi+Ud+36v7Qq7mNJL yMUiRxtHU85aK1ZDtdwxQVSuT92xYabnI73+as11nQXxpLJgS+PdsSd99Nq4JjzO nSM/ZKdg54xzmNsF7RpWvoQvOBtxQZzoLS3dxL4ZywAGw+62LiOR2xLonzGcf+lm U+SvfbO0EfE= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E51C696AD; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA216696AC; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:12:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Giuseppe Bilotta Cc: Git ML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] rebase --signoff References: <20170415144103.11986-1-giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:12:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170415144103.11986-1-giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> (Giuseppe Bilotta's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2017 16:41:00 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 479FDE96-233D-11E7-87B1-C260AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Giuseppe Bilotta writes: > Allow signing off a whole patchset by rebasing it with the --signoff > option, which is simply passed through to git am. > Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 5 +++++ > builtin/am.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++-------------------- > git-rebase.sh | 3 ++- > t/t3428-rebase-signoff.sh | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Two questions. - Is it better to add a brand new test script than adding new tests to existing scripts that test "git rebase"? - How does this interact with "git rebase -i" and other modes of operation?