From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04A41F4B4 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 19:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727094AbgJRTIT (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:08:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:56247 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726249AbgJRTIT (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:08:19 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080C57140A; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:08:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=5PBNjcaATmwmxYxrJK0jp4KXgAg=; b=QPm495 Gv3FsXPQd3wdy/4hMA8X+XiNMg+rhx2mlQeM3KbwaupXX+HiJTjJiYp6MzLusnWJ 8FWiM8oVsL/tGahkWWuEqLws6mNnIAq/NhxALw7Ix1+8lU+eiFy6Jd3wJT8szQcj BvJ32r6WdVfPb5OuXP58j+9ZSkCapsHmy21wk= 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=ulpzJPb3Gjom4tJVP2qpcYBtycAPOOSy 97AJXEpeH59aX06vEGp1qmsyO8zl0oPbITdc3EVhIy/yAZkxgvYv1CFSYh/R5xU7 YwLMwGSgRQJ6oDwx4dhKXz4z/DABn1OFhuzynPPj7WUmwoih3pih8lM/MLVh0BQd MIsND5wirVk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A1571409; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:08:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79C1971407; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:08:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Philippe Blain , Git mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Clarify and expand description of --signoff References: <20201015215933.96425-1-bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> <59E3B060-63E3-41C2-A7C4-5B2C888F8D68@gmail.com> <20201016015937.GA3335046@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20201016201119.GA3356073@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 12:08:15 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201016201119.GA3356073@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:11:19 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 47031B4A-1175-11EB-8204-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:53:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > Jeff King writes: >> > >> >> What should we change there? We could perhaps bring up signoffs earlier >> >> or more prominently. Or tie it in to the git-commit docs by saying >> >> explicitly: these are _our_ project rules for signoffs. >> >> Let's tie this loose end. How about squashing in something like >> this? > > Thanks for writing this up. I agree it makes the text much better (not > only in emphasizing the point we've been discussing, but also in general > clarity). > > You said "squashing", but I'd suggest keeping it as its own patch on top > of Bradley's. OK, let's do so. I recall I read that Bradley's patch needs a bit of word/grammo polishing? Thanks.