[PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

This allows people (like me) that forget to sign off their commits to do
a single rebase pass e.g. while preparing the patchset for submission.

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/git-rebase.txt |    6 ++++++
 git-rebase.sh                |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
index 30e5c0e..d513e42 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
@@ -320,6 +320,12 @@ link:howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.txt[revert-a-faulty-merge How-To] for details).
 -p::
 --preserve-merges::
 	Instead of ignoring merges, try to recreate them.
+
+--signoff::
+	This flag is passed to 'git am' to sign off all the rebased
+	commits (see linkgit:git-am[1]).
+	Incompatible with the --interactive option.
+
 +
 This uses the `--interactive` machinery internally, but combining it
 with the `--interactive` option explicitly is generally not a good
diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh
index 0e9d52a..9de03ee 100755
--- a/git-rebase.sh
+++ b/git-rebase.sh
@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ do
 	--ignore-whitespace)
 		git_am_opt="$git_am_opt $1"
 		;;
-	--committer-date-is-author-date|--ignore-date)
+	--committer-date-is-author-date|--ignore-date|--signoff)
 		git_am_opt="$git_am_opt $1"
 		force_rebase=t
 		;;
-- 
1.7.3.2.184.gecaee

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:15, Giuseppe Bilotta
<giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> wrote:
>  -p::
>  --preserve-merges::
>        Instead of ignoring merges, try to recreate them.
> +
> +--signoff::
> +       This flag is passed to 'git am' to sign off all the rebased
> +       commits (see linkgit:git-am[1]).
> +       Incompatible with the --interactive option.

The one above that does have a shorthand (-p), why should we (not?)
give --signoff it's customary -s shorthand here?

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:

> Heya,
> 
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:15, Giuseppe Bilotta
> <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  -p::
> >  --preserve-merges::
> >        Instead of ignoring merges, try to recreate them.
> > +
> > +--signoff::
> > +       This flag is passed to 'git am' to sign off all the rebased
> > +       commits (see linkgit:git-am[1]).
> > +       Incompatible with the --interactive option.
> 
> The one above that does have a shorthand (-p), why should we (not?)
> give --signoff it's customary -s shorthand here?

The '-s' flag is unfortunately already taken. It is used for
specifying a merge strategy.

/Martin

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk
<martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
>
>> Heya,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:15, Giuseppe Bilotta
>> <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >  -p::
>> >  --preserve-merges::
>> >        Instead of ignoring merges, try to recreate them.
>> > +
>> > +--signoff::
>> > +       This flag is passed to 'git am' to sign off all the rebased
>> > +       commits (see linkgit:git-am[1]).
>> > +       Incompatible with the --interactive option.
>>
>> The one above that does have a shorthand (-p), why should we (not?)
>> give --signoff it's customary -s shorthand here?
>
> The '-s' flag is unfortunately already taken. It is used for
> specifying a merge strategy.

In fact, this is why I was a little skeptical myself about submitting
this patch. What if people start remembering that rebase supports
--signoff and implicity assume that -s is also a valid shortcut? Funky
errors. (I've been bittem myself by similar situations for whitespace
support. Can I pass -b or not? Will it mean --ignore-whitespace?)

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Kevin Ballard]

On Nov 27, 2010, at 3:15 AM, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

> This allows people (like me) that forget to sign off their commits to do
> a single rebase pass e.g. while preparing the patchset for submission.

You're probably already aware, but git format-patch supports the -s/--signoff
flags to sign off commits as they're prepared. There's even a config var
you can set to make this the default (format.signoff = true).

-Kevin Ballard

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2010, at 3:15 AM, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>
>> This allows people (like me) that forget to sign off their commits to do
>> a single rebase pass e.g. while preparing the patchset for submission.
>
> You're probably already aware, but git format-patch supports the -s/--signoff
> flags to sign off commits as they're prepared. There's even a config var
> you can set to make this the default (format.signoff = true).

That works if you're sharing your patches with format-patch, but not
for example when asking for a pull. Maybe I should extend the commit
message to include this case.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Giuseppe Bilotta
<giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 2010, at 3:15 AM, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>>
>>> This allows people (like me) that forget to sign off their commits to do
>>> a single rebase pass e.g. while preparing the patchset for submission.
>>
>> You're probably already aware, but git format-patch supports the -s/--signoff
>> flags to sign off commits as they're prepared. There's even a config var
>> you can set to make this the default (format.signoff = true).
>
> That works if you're sharing your patches with format-patch, but not
> for example when asking for a pull. Maybe I should extend the commit
> message to include this case.

For what it's worth, somebody on #git just asked how to signoff a
bunch of patches. The answer was to rebase -i and sign off each one of
them. This is exactly the kind of usage that my patch would simplify.
Any chance of it getting merged?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Jonathan Nieder]

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

> For what it's worth, somebody on #git just asked how to signoff a
> bunch of patches. The answer was to rebase -i and sign off each one of
> them.

How I would do it in existing git:

	git branch oldhead
	git reset --keep base
	git log --oneline --graph HEAD..oldhead;	# the right patches?
	git cherry-pick -s HEAD..oldhead
	git diff oldhead

Or without multiple-cherry-pick, maybe:

	git branch oldhead
	git reset --keep base
	git format-patch -k --stdout HEAD..oldhead >series
	git am -s -3 -i series;	# the right patches?
	git diff oldhead

No opinion on the automatic-signoff-in-rebase here.

[PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 5 +++++
 git-rebase.sh                | 3 ++-
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
index 67d48e6883..e6f0b93337 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
@@ -385,6 +385,11 @@ have the long commit hash prepended to the format.
 	Recreate merge commits instead of flattening the history by replaying
 	commits a merge commit introduces. Merge conflict resolutions or manual
 	amendments to merge commits are not preserved.
+
+--signoff::
+	This flag is passed to 'git am' to sign off all the rebased
+	commits (see linkgit:git-am[1]).
+
 +
 This uses the `--interactive` machinery internally, but combining it
 with the `--interactive` option explicitly is generally not a good
diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh
index 48d7c5ded4..e468a061f9 100755
--- a/git-rebase.sh
+++ b/git-rebase.sh
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
 autosquash         move commits that begin with squash!/fixup! under -i
 committer-date-is-author-date! passed to 'git am'
 ignore-date!       passed to 'git am'
+signoff!           passed to 'git am'
 whitespace=!       passed to 'git apply'
 ignore-whitespace! passed to 'git apply'
 C=!                passed to 'git apply'
@@ -321,7 +322,7 @@ run_pre_rebase_hook ()
 	--ignore-whitespace)
 		git_am_opt="$git_am_opt $1"
 		;;
-	--committer-date-is-author-date|--ignore-date)
+	--committer-date-is-author-date|--ignore-date|--signoff)
 		git_am_opt="$git_am_opt $1"
 		force_rebase=t
 		;;
-- 
2.11.0.585.g56041942c3.dirty

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Junio C Hamano]

Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 5 +++++
>  git-rebase.sh                | 3 ++-
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Should we plan to extend this to the interactive backend that is
shared between rebase -i and rebase -m, too?  Or is this patch
already sufficient to cover them?

> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> index 67d48e6883..e6f0b93337 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> @@ -385,6 +385,11 @@ have the long commit hash prepended to the format.
>  	Recreate merge commits instead of flattening the history by replaying
>  	commits a merge commit introduces. Merge conflict resolutions or manual
>  	amendments to merge commits are not preserved.
> +
> +--signoff::
> +	This flag is passed to 'git am' to sign off all the rebased
> +	commits (see linkgit:git-am[1]).
> +
>  +
>  This uses the `--interactive` machinery internally, but combining it
>  with the `--interactive` option explicitly is generally not a good
> diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh
> index 48d7c5ded4..e468a061f9 100755
> --- a/git-rebase.sh
> +++ b/git-rebase.sh
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
>  autosquash         move commits that begin with squash!/fixup! under -i
>  committer-date-is-author-date! passed to 'git am'
>  ignore-date!       passed to 'git am'
> +signoff!           passed to 'git am'
>  whitespace=!       passed to 'git apply'
>  ignore-whitespace! passed to 'git apply'
>  C=!                passed to 'git apply'
> @@ -321,7 +322,7 @@ run_pre_rebase_hook ()
>  	--ignore-whitespace)
>  		git_am_opt="$git_am_opt $1"
>  		;;
> -	--committer-date-is-author-date|--ignore-date)
> +	--committer-date-is-author-date|--ignore-date|--signoff)
>  		git_am_opt="$git_am_opt $1"
>  		force_rebase=t
>  		;;

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Should we plan to extend this to the interactive backend that is
> shared between rebase -i and rebase -m, too?  Or is this patch
> already sufficient to cover them?

AFAIK this is sufficient for both, in the sense that I've used it with
git rebase -i and it works.

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Junio C Hamano]

Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Should we plan to extend this to the interactive backend that is
>> shared between rebase -i and rebase -m, too?  Or is this patch
>> already sufficient to cover them?
>
> AFAIK this is sufficient for both, in the sense that I've used it with
> git rebase -i and it works.

That is a good news and at the same time a bit awkard one ;-)  

The mention of "passed to 'git am'" twice in the documentation and
help text would lead people to think "rebase -i" would not be
affected and (1) would need more work to do so, or (2) the user does
not want "rebase -i" to be unaffected for whatever reason, and gets
surprised to see that it actually does get affected.

In any case, will queue as-is so that we won't lose the patch while
waiting for people to raise their opinions.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Should we plan to extend this to the interactive backend that is
>>> shared between rebase -i and rebase -m, too?  Or is this patch
>>> already sufficient to cover them?
>>
>> AFAIK this is sufficient for both, in the sense that I've used it with
>> git rebase -i and it works.
>
> That is a good news and at the same time a bit awkard one ;-)
>
> The mention of "passed to 'git am'" twice in the documentation and
> help text would lead people to think "rebase -i" would not be
> affected and (1) would need more work to do so, or (2) the user does
> not want "rebase -i" to be unaffected for whatever reason, and gets
> surprised to see that it actually does get affected.

I'm not sure I follow. If the user doesn't want to signoff during a
rebase, they can simply not pass --signoff. If they do, they can not
pass it. Am I missing something?

> In any case, will queue as-is so that we won't lose the patch while
> waiting for people to raise their opinions.

Thanks.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Junio C Hamano]

Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should we plan to extend this to the interactive backend that is
>>>> shared between rebase -i and rebase -m, too?  Or is this patch
>>>> already sufficient to cover them?
>>>
>>> AFAIK this is sufficient for both, in the sense that I've used it with
>>> git rebase -i and it works.
>>
>> That is a good news and at the same time a bit awkard one ;-)
>>
>> The mention of "passed to 'git am'" twice in the documentation and
>> help text would lead people to think "rebase -i" would not be
>> affected and (1) would need more work to do so, or (2) the user does
>> not want "rebase -i" to be unaffected for whatever reason, and gets
>> surprised to see that it actually does get affected.
>
> I'm not sure I follow. If the user doesn't want to signoff during a
> rebase, they can simply not pass --signoff. If they do, they can not
> pass it. Am I missing something?

alias.

Which also means that there needs to be --no-signoff option that can
be given to countermand an earlier --signoff, if a user did

	[alias] rb = rebase --signoff

and wants to disable it one time only with

	$ git rb --no-signoff

>
>> In any case, will queue as-is so that we won't lose the patch while
>> waiting for people to raise their opinions.
>
> Thanks.

Thanks.  The final version would also need tests, so it may be a
good time to start thinking about what aspect of this feature wants
to be protected against future breakages.

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow. If the user doesn't want to signoff during a
>> rebase, they can simply not pass --signoff. If they do, they can not
>> pass it. Am I missing something?
>
> alias.
>
> Which also means that there needs to be --no-signoff option that can
> be given to countermand an earlier --signoff, if a user did
>
>         [alias] rb = rebase --signoff
>
> and wants to disable it one time only with
>
>         $ git rb --no-signoff

Oh, right, good point. This should be easy, I'll give this a go.

>>> In any case, will queue as-is so that we won't lose the patch while
>>> waiting for people to raise their opinions.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Thanks.  The final version would also need tests, so it may be a
> good time to start thinking about what aspect of this feature wants
> to be protected against future breakages.

I have troubles thinking how it could go wrong.  The most obvious
thing I can think of is it could not be remembered after an
interruption+continue. I'll think about this some more.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: [PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Giuseppe Bilotta
<giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Should we plan to extend this to the interactive backend that is
>> shared between rebase -i and rebase -m, too?  Or is this patch
>> already sufficient to cover them?
>
> AFAIK this is sufficient for both, in the sense that I've used it with
> git rebase -i and it works.

Hm, something very strange is going on, I've just tested the patch on
top of current next and for some reason the signoff line does not get
added. The command-line option gets passed to git am, but I get no
signoff for some reason, so something is failing down the line, I'll
have to investigate.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

[PATCH] rebase: pass --signoff option to git am

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com>
---
 git-rebase.sh |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Although this patch is born to help people like me that forget to sign
off their patchset before sending, it can also be of help to maintainers
that want to add their signoff to a patchset in case they forgot during
the `git am` run. (Also, there is no reason why this `git am` option
should not be available through `git rebase`.)

diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh
index 3335cee..cdb4299 100755
--- a/git-rebase.sh
+++ b/git-rebase.sh
@@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ do
 	--ignore-whitespace)
 		git_am_opt="$git_am_opt $1"
 		;;
-	--committer-date-is-author-date|--ignore-date)
+	--committer-date-is-author-date|--ignore-date|--signoff)
 		git_am_opt="$git_am_opt $1"
 		force_rebase=t
 		;;
-- 
1.7.3.rc1.230.g8b572