Subject: Re: co-authoring commits

From: Jakub Narębski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:18:38 +0200

On 2015-06-18 at 23:25, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:26:32PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
[...]
>> One could imagine some frankly, quite rare example where there is a
>> team of people who votes on each commit before it gets sent out and
>> where everyone is equal and there is no hierarchy. In that case,
>> perhaps you could set the from field to a mailing list address. But
>> honestly, how often is that *all* of the authors are completely
>> equal[1]?
> 
> For that case something like patchwork, phabricator, or gerrit seems
> to be the logical tool to use, and should ideally leave a trace of
> approvals and such in the resulting commit message(s). If the patch
> management tool takes care of merging the commit(s), it can be harder
> to misattribute signed-off/reviewed-by/etc, which is a good thing.

Doesn't Gerrit (at least) use trailer-like structured *notes* in the
'reviews' category (i.e. refs/notes/reviews ref) to store information
about review process?

> You could of course use multiple (everybody makes their own) commits,
> where you risk breaking bisectability and avoid the need for equal
> co-authorship support. In pair programming such intermediate commits
> will quite often be fixups, and when you attempt to squash the fixups
> for bisectability's sake, you may get a desire for co-authorship of
> the resulting commit.

Hmmm... I didn't think about the problem of attributing authorship
for squashed commits.  Though here multiple 'author' headers, or
multiline 'author' header would be a better match than 'coauthor'
header (which itself doesn't need, I think, the date filed, or does it?)

[This is sent from Thunderbird news, so it should be all right]
-- 
Jakub Narębski