Message ID | 20170113035020.GA9063@makrotopia.org |
---|---|
State | Changes Requested |
Delegated to: | John Crispin |
Headers | show |
Hi Kalle, On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:46:56PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org> writes: > > ... > > Please review and comment, so we can get those patches merged! > > No pull requests, please. Instead send these as patches, easier to > review and actually also easier for me to merge. The advantage of pull requests is that author information can be preserved more easily. Running git format-patch results in most patches having wrong SMTP sender information due to the assumption that the patch author is the same person also submitting the patch. So in practise, this would either require changing the From: (and thus Author) to myself or having most mails eaten by anti-spam measures due to non-matching SPF which prohibits my SMTP to send mail on behalf of the original authors of the patches. How do you suggest to handle this situation? Cheers Daniel
> The advantage of pull requests is that author information can be > preserved more easily. Running git format-patch results in most > patches > having wrong SMTP sender information due to the assumption that the > patch author is the same person also submitting the patch. > So in practise, this would either require changing the From: (and > thus > Author) to myself or having most mails eaten by anti-spam measures > due > to non-matching SPF which prohibits my SMTP to send mail on behalf of > the original authors of the patches. > This is completely untrue. If the first line of the *body* of the email is "From: ..." then this is preserved as the author information by git am, and doing so is also the default in git format-patch/send-email when the author doesn't match the email configuration. johannes
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:59:59PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > The advantage of pull requests is that author information can be > > preserved more easily. Running git format-patch results in most > > patches > > having wrong SMTP sender information due to the assumption that the > > patch author is the same person also submitting the patch. > > So in practise, this would either require changing the From: (and > > thus > > Author) to myself or having most mails eaten by anti-spam measures > > due > > to non-matching SPF which prohibits my SMTP to send mail on behalf of > > the original authors of the patches. > > > > This is completely untrue. If the first line of the *body* of the email > is "From: ..." then this is preserved as the author information by git > am, and doing so is also the default in git format-patch/send-email > when the author doesn't match the email configuration. Thanks for the clarification, I'll then submit the patches via git format-patch. Cheers Daniel
On Friday, January 13, 2017 4:46:30 PM CET Daniel Golle wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:46:56PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org> writes: > > > ... > > > Please review and comment, so we can get those patches merged! > > > > No pull requests, please. Instead send these as patches, easier to > > review and actually also easier for me to merge. > > The advantage of pull requests is that author information can be > preserved more easily. Running git format-patch results in most patches > having wrong SMTP sender information due to the assumption that the > patch author is the same person also submitting the patch. > So in practise, this would either require changing the From: (and thus > Author) to myself or having most mails eaten by anti-spam measures due > to non-matching SPF which prohibits my SMTP to send mail on behalf of > the original authors of the patches. > > How do you suggest to handle this situation? > From what I know, git format-patch and send-email [0] will add a second FROM: in the email's body with the author of the commit automatically (if author isn't you). This is what it did, when I posted the apm821xx patches on lede-dev [1] (Look at the additional "FROM: Chris Blake ..." line in these patches. Whereas the mail came from my address). The MTA (MDA, ...) will use the first FROM: (your address) whereas git will use the FROM in the mail body (so the patch will be correctly attributed to the original patch author). If you don't want to bother the original authors, you can look at the --suppress-cc=author option and enable --dry-run on git send-email. I would say, just give it a "dry". (Sadly, I didn't find any documentation for this feature. But I know it worked back then and it should be fine with SPF.) Regards, Christian [0] <https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email> [1] <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-July/001865.html>
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 05:17:23PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:59:59PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > The advantage of pull requests is that author information can be > > > preserved more easily. Running git format-patch results in most > > > patches > > > having wrong SMTP sender information due to the assumption that the > > > patch author is the same person also submitting the patch. > > > So in practise, this would either require changing the From: (and > > > thus > > > Author) to myself or having most mails eaten by anti-spam measures > > > due > > > to non-matching SPF which prohibits my SMTP to send mail on behalf of > > > the original authors of the patches. > > > > > > > This is completely untrue. If the first line of the *body* of the email > > is "From: ..." then this is preserved as the author information by git > > am, and doing so is also the default in git format-patch/send-email > > when the author doesn't match the email configuration. > > Thanks for the clarification, I'll then submit the patches via > git format-patch. I posted all patches on the mailing list and bundled them up on patchwork. https://patchwork.kernel.org/bundle/dangole/rt2x00-from-openwrt/ Cheers Daniel