What happens if someone doesn't follow the conventions? Can they be enforced automatically?
-- Lefty On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran < pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Great idea. Definitely we should attribute the contributions from the > author in a better way. +1. > We should update the docs on “How to Contribute?” to generate the patch > using format-path. > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Ashutosh Chauhan <hashut...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > There was a problem of attributing contributions correctly back when we > > were using svn, now that we are on git, that problem can be addressed. > This > > email is an effort to solicit feedback for it. > > > > Problem: In svn, there is only a committer field, so when committer was > > committing someone else's patch there was no way in svn to record > original > > contributor. We used to workaround this by putting name of contributor in > > commit message. > > > > Git offers a better solution for this, since it makes a distinction > between > > committer and author of the patch. However, to do this git needs patch to > > be formatted (with git format-patch) and committed (using git am) in > > certain way. I myself is using following flags to generate and commit > > patches for some time now: > > > > git format-patch --stdout -1 > HIVE-XXXXX.patch > > git am --signoff HIVE-XXXXX.patch > > > > I propose we follow these conventions to generate and commit patches. > > Thoughts? > > > > Ashutosh > > > > PS: Motivation for this came while lurking on linux kernel mailing list, > > where I found Linux devs follow similar process. > >
