Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Cc: Sam James <sam@g.o>, Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items for upcoming council meeting (2022-05-08)
Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 20:08:28
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=r8Ju6DhFD+N9Qy-8yVSjUXPf5sj2GSDJHewd=+2bByg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items for upcoming council meeting (2022-05-08) by Arthur Zamarin
1 On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:27 PM Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > This change will force all users to change their flow, or set the
4 > configuration part - meaning it is a semi-breaking change.
5
6 Since commits to the main repo without the signoff are going to get
7 rejected anyway, if we decide to go ahead with this would it make
8 sense to just have it abort by default if the config item or command
9 line parameter is missing?
10
11 If a user really wants to commit without a signoff they can just set
12 --signoff=false, or the equivalent in the config file.
13
14 Basically make it a non-optional parameter.
15
16 If this weren't a gentoo-specific tool I'd see making the behavior
17 more generic, but it seems like if the default is going to be to help
18 the user to shoot themself in the foot, it should just output some
19 kind of explanation of the need for the parameter and what it means if
20 it is not provided.
21
22 --
23 Rich

Replies