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 should 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 ammend after applying the patch. On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <ozhurakou...@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 > ‘-s’ flag and led me to this thread on Stack Overflow - > 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’s origin, history and purpose appears to have more > “individual” legal implications then showcasing the actual committer. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers > Oleg > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Andre > <andre-li...@fucs.org<mailto:andre-li...@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 the > 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 >
