Thanks a lot for the feedback.
I read Documentation/SubmittingPatches before sending the original patch,
but it seems not everything had sunk in.
(And I definitely should have read it again before sending v2...)
I will resubmit the patch, then.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 09:38:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 51 quoted lines
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Seems like Junio was waiting for someone to point this out[2].
>
> Thanks. I think you covered most of them correctly; I only have one
> thing to add.
>
> > * Comments are put after ---. So your paragraph
> > "Clarify which commits need to be signed.
> >
> > Uniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP
> > - a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;
> > - in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a
> > trusted key;
> > - a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.
> >
> > Thanks to Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> for reviewing
> > the first attempt at this patch."
> >
> > is actually treated as a comment.
>
> This is half-true, I think. The message you are responding to had
> only two dashes, not three.
>
> The usual way to do what the original wanted to do is like this:
>
> ... e-mail headers like From:, Subject:, ...
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is a second attempt.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: Documentation: clarify --verify signature
>
> Clarify that only the signature of the commit at the tip of
> the branch being merged is checked. Also align the
> vocabulary to describe key & signature validity with those
> used by OpenPGP, namely:
>
> - a signature is valid if ...
> ...
> - a key is trusted if ...
>
> Signed-off-by: A U Thor <au@thor.xz>
> ---
> Documentation/merge-options.txt | ... diffstat comes here
>
> Notice the "-- >8 --" (cut here) line. "am" will notice it, discard
> what it has read so far and restart from there.
>
KellerFuchs <kellerfuchs@hashbang.sh>