Vladimir,
why do you think that second approach allows to avoid typos in contributor
names?
Git commit has special field for author information. From my point of view
this field is the best place for contributor name.
Patch that was created with `git format-patch` command contains information
about author. If you'll apply this patch using `git am` command then all
commits in the patch will applied to the current branch and author
information will correctly assigned to the `author` field.
It is possible that patch was created with `git diff` command. In this case
you should use `git commit` command with `--author` parameter.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
[hidden email]>
wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Let's discuss how to mention contributor name when pushing contributed
> patches. There are at least two ways of doing this:
>
> 1) Impersonate commit on behalf of real author. In this case commit will
> appear in history as if it was performed by contributor:
> git commit --author="John Doe <
[hidden email]>"
>
> 2) Commit with your (committer) name mentioning author in description:
> git commit -m "Cool feature. Thanks to John Doe for contribution."
>
> Please share your thoughts on which format is preferrable. I prefer the
> second one. It is successfully used in other big projects such as Hadoop
> and OpenJDK. With the first one GIT history will eventually be flooded with
> misspelled contributor names ("John Doe", "Jonh Doe", "Jon Do", "John
> Whatever")
>
> Vladimir.
>
--
Andrey Gura
GridGain Systems, Inc.
www.gridgain.com
Locked
