Mailing-List: contact dev-help@nifi.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@nifi.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALJK9a7ibZteOiLO5SMg-UwicmHfiFiptj9=SxaiPh3uX=1ZQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJpGy9LVuHJV8fK2bUhhhPLzqbXzDX87BD8e0RSimK=GtWJLig@mail.gmail.com>
 <71AE15B9-31C5-45FF-AF08-5BB48080F37B@hortonworks.com> <CALo_M1_HMLM-RFwhEwTu=NUMp2sJndXATuNZH4qUNonYm5Ca6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <A4DC3D29-D6D6-431D-8780-FBD237EB9CAC@hortonworks.com> <CAEV8zdXAo2SVWNwd88w4bnHCt5_mFBt=90L2j_jNK2agN9ksRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALJK9a7ibZteOiLO5SMg-UwicmHfiFiptj9=SxaiPh3uX=1ZQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Skora <jskora@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:42:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPYoqXSC7RtZkAQh6V2egLnYJMZ3DB8=pfUUQDVoNN_zf4YSVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [REMINDER] Please signoff when committing other people's changes
To: dev@nifi.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec8c2b8661d0549c14aa2
archived-at: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:43:40 -0000

--001a113ec8c2b8661d0549c14aa2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Like Andre, I originally got the requirement for signoff from the
Contributor Guide[1] when I started working on the project and later from
this email thread[2].  If this not the expected process, we should
definitely update the Contributor Guide.

From the Apache perspective the signoff confirms that the contribution was
reviewed for Apache compliance, but that's incumbent on anyone committing
to the repository.  Since the committer identity is available from the
repository the signoff seems redundant.

[1]https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#
ContributorGuide-Stepstomerge/closepullrequestswithtwomainbranches
[2]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1ce165a4172f67ce08683d3eb1c8253319a97d=
add0ccc3fbc598f639@1446565288@%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:

> For what it is worth this is definitely not a requirement and not
> something I knew anything of so I never do it.
>
> I think it is a perfectly fine idea and a good practice to follow so
> occasional reminders of its utility are fair game.  That said, to
> Bryan's point I rely on the JIRA/issues history if i need to know who
> did a given review.  So we have a couple of options.
>
> But we should probably stop short of calling this a requirement.  In
> an apache sense it is not.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Matt Burgess <mattyb149@apache.org> wrote=
:
> > I didn't realize it was required either, I usually only sign off
> > (using the same thing Bryan Bende does) if the PR author couldn't
> > merge it on their own (i.e. not a NiFi committer/PMC). Certainly I can
> > start always signing off commits.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matt
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky
> > <ozhurakousky@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks Bryan.
> >>
> >> If =E2=80=98-s=E2=80=99 is only for showcasing the committer I don=E2=
=80=99t believe anyone
> would have any issues with it, but my concern at the moment is purely
> legal, so I am not sure who is the right person to answer that, but figur=
ed
> raising the concern is the least I can do.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Oleg
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The sign-off is so we can easily see who the reviewer/merger was from
> >>> the git history.
> >>>
> >>> We can always go back to the JIRA or PR and the reviewer/merger shoul=
d
> >>> have commented there, but its convenient to see it in the git history
> >>> in my opinion.
> >>>
> >>> Personally, whenever merging someones contribution I use "git am
> >>> --signoff < patchfile" which I guess is equivalent to doing the ammen=
d
> >>> after applying the patch.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky
> >>> <ozhurakousky@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >>>> Andre
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the reminder. I admit that I did not know that we require
> it in the Contributor Guide, so thanks for pointing it out.
> >>>> However, your email did prompt me to look at the purpose and origin
> of the =E2=80=98-s=E2=80=99 flag and led me to this thread on Stack Overf=
low -
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1962094/what-is-the-
> sign-off-feature-in-git-for.
> >>>>
> >>>> And I am now wondering if we should require it or even use it in the
> first place, since it=E2=80=99s origin, history and purpose appears to ha=
ve more
> =E2=80=9Cindividual=E2=80=9D legal implications then showcasing the actua=
l committer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Oleg
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Andre <andre-lists@fucs.org<mailto:a
> ndre-lists@fucs.org>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> dev,
> >>>>
> >>>> May I remind you to ensure we follow the Contributor Guide and use:
> >>>>
> >>>> git commit --amend -s
> >>>>
> >>>> when merging commits from your peers?
> >>>>
> >>>> While git pretty-format can be used to reveal the committer, I am
> sure that
> >>>> all of us will agree that as an inclusive community we value both th=
e
> >>>> pretty and ugly formats...
> >>>>
> >>>> So can we give the ugly format the support it deserves and ensure we
> add
> >>>> the neat Signed-off-by stamp to the commit message?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>

--001a113ec8c2b8661d0549c14aa2--