Open Stack

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:52:30 +0200
Soren Hansen <soren at linux2go.dk> wrote:

> 2011/4/22 FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp>:
>>> I find the rebasing/cherry-picking practice even worse in the Linux
>>> kernel context due to the patch tagging used there. If I add a
>>> "Signed-off-by: Soren Hansen" to a patch and someone cherry picks that
>>> patch or moves it around as part of a rebase, my patch still shows up as
>>> "Signed-off-by: me" even though I've never signed off on the patch in
>>> its new context. I remember at one point I had a patch that added some
>> "Signed-off-by:" is not about the context. For Linux kernel, it simply
>> says that you release your code under GPL.
> 
> Fair enough. That doesn't change that my name is still on the commit,
> and there might be a bunch of Acked-By's or Tested-By's on there that
> suddenly are invalid, because those people never tested the patch in the
> context where it's now found.

git doesn't require you to copy the original Acked-by or
Tested-by. You can't blame git for that. You can misuse any tool.


>> You can't control how other people use it.
> 
> Of course I can't. I'm objecting to the fact that certain conventions
> among users of certain tools encourage moving patches (not code, but
> patches to code. Very different things.) around and leaving artefacts in
> the metadata that claims that a whole bunch of people have reviewed it
> and acknowledge that it works as intended.

Ditto.


>> I vote for git. It's much eaiser to try to get your changes merged
>> into a project that uses git.
> 
> Can you substantiate that somehow? How is it easier?

Hmm, people already mentioned them. Otherwise, we didn't discuss this
topic. For example, git is much better than bzr about sharing trees
between branches (even you admitted bzr should do better about it).

Why can't we simply use the better tool at this moment?