From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF5B1F70F for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:18:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753811AbdAZSSF (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:18:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57592 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753213AbdAZSSE (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:18:04 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3219D63FEE; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:18:03 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=UVrI7eBS3mCrEzWM0IRV30O8bqk=; b=fiIqoh XcZ3j3YiuO+OJl87ADmdc4r+9VjQRmtpvZwmljkKcIj1hzWcdX13GzsvTdLc8Pkz iM61KoZCqZYI7HIXw3lMWjN+nOA1ISodihrt1tBzfoNUZ9s0JXPrUFWqROtk0Dew 2VG2Y2ylMbe144ZTuM+xOHR1riHyHcTgMZqts= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=tFwxrNbHwJ/CKi0nLodUo+bTcRSFiqCI ZqXGkpLD06EW0vcOtNP4S65LGB46dPj4hcW1C6u4L6TuYbcbWmOrOBfiKd51ZuJo L0/HfWCm4kNZkRrQ5JD7N394MUjNX/dqVZfrhWu6FSD1W9RlXnju6DY8jsp56v04 vCWV9KWfMdI= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2786363FED; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:18:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40FFC63FEB; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:18:02 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Cornelius Weig Cc: Stefan Beller , Philip Oakley , Johannes Sixt , bitte.keine.werbung.einwerfen@googlemail.com, "git\@vger.kernel.org" , thomas.braun@virtuell-zuhause.de, John Keeping Subject: Re: SubmittingPatches: drop temporal reference for PGP signing References: <923cd4e4-5c9c-4eaf-0fea-6deff6875b88@tngtech.com> <20170125002116.22111-1-sbeller@google.com> <33E354BCDB9A4192B69B9B399381659E@PhilipOakley> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:18:00 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Cornelius Weig's message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:30:14 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C63325EE-E3F3-11E6-B234-FE3F13518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Cornelius Weig writes: > How about something along these lines? Does the forward reference > break the main line of thought too severly? I find it a bit distracting for those who know PGP signing has nothing to do with signing off your patch, but I think that is OK because they are not the primary target audience of this part of the document. I however am more worried that it may be misleading to mention these two in the same sentence. Those who skim these paragraphs without knowing the difference between the two may get a false impression that these two may somehow be related because they are mentioned in the same sentence. The retitling of section (5) you did, without any other change, might be sufficient. It may also help to be even more explicit in the updated title, i.e. s/by signing off/by adding Signed-off-by:/ Thanks. > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index 08352de..c2b0cbe 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -216,12 +216,12 @@ that it will be postponed. > Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask > you to re-send them using MIME, that is OK. > > -Do not PGP sign your patch, at least for now. Most likely, your > -maintainer or other people on the list would not have your PGP > -key and would not bother obtaining it anyway. Your patch is not > -judged by who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin has a > -far better chance of being accepted than a patch from a known, > -respected origin that is done poorly or does incorrect things. > +Do not PGP sign your patch, but do sign-off your work as explained in (5). > +Most likely, your maintainer or other people on the list would not have your > +PGP key and would not bother obtaining it anyway. Your patch is not judged by > +who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin has a far better chance of > +being accepted than a patch from a known, respected origin that is done poorly > +or does incorrect things. > > If you really really really really want to do a PGP signed > patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a text/plain message > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ patch. > *2* The mailing list: git@vger.kernel.org > > > -(5) Sign your work > +(5) Certify your work by signing off > > To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the > "sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches