Re: [PATCH v3] git-merge: rewrite already up to date message

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com>,
	Josh Soref via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
	Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] git-merge: rewrite already up to date message
Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 15:26:16 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqr1ipbqif.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cR0Z=sUPHW8kuMG0sOv4bb309MV=WTR1nMGOoYB+1yfVg@mail.gmail.com> (Eric Sunshine's message of "Sat, 1 May 2021 22:15:18 -0400")

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 9:51 PM Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> > I am not sure why this is Co-au, and not the more usual "Helped-by".
>>
>> If you look at the thread, you'll see that the code in question was
>> written by Eric [1]. The only change from it was the addition of
>> `void` to the function prototype by me.
>
> Oops, I suppose I've been doing too much Go and C++ lately and am
> forgetting `void`.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion between Co-authored-by: and Helped-by:
> in this case. Here's my sign-off if you want to retain Co-authored-by:
>
>     Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>

I am not in principle opposed to the idea of co-authored-by; for
this particular one, we historically have used Helped-by (i.e. a
reviewer offers "writing it this way is cleaner" suggestions on the
list and then gets credited on the next version), and it wasn't
clear to me if you consented to be a co-author of the patch.  If the
party who were named as a co-author responded that it is OK, I would
be perfectly fine.