On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 06:41:27PM +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote: > > But thinking about the signoff requirement: you already have all the > > information you need from the next trailer, namely the signoff. In > > other words this: > > > > [kh: Added tests] > > Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Has the same information as this: > > > > Comment: Added tests > > Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Because the signoff order tells you who left the comment. So I was > > wondering to myself why this uniform approach wasn’t used. > > > > † 1: Since the brackets become “non-trailer values” or something > > (git-interpret-trailers(1)), i.e. the discarded parts of the trailer > > block > > I was just reminded of this: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqikmce67y.fsf@gitster.g/T/#m68c22c9b7dbc9b295e923a913e9d67e3ab28a2a4 > > I’m just doing a little bump of this topic in case anyone has any > thoughts. I hope that is okay. It is the same information _if_ there is another trailer with the ident that comes afterwards. In our project, you'd usually have a sign-off there. But not all projects would, and even in git.git you don't necessarily need one, depending on what is in the comment. That said, if I were designing trailers from scratch today, I'd probably require something that looks more like "Comment:" just because it would reduce the complexity of the trailer parser (and its "non trailer portions"). But since we live in a world where we support that for historical reasons, I don't mind using it (I find it more natural to read, but possibly my mind is polluted by years of practice). -Peff
