Re: [PATCH 7/7] completion: recognize more long-options

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Cornelius Weig
> <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com> wrote:
>> On 01/25/2017 12:24 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Cornelius Weig <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Please study item (5) "Sign your work" in
>>>>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches and sign off your work.
>>>>
>>>> I followed the recommendations to submitting work, and in the first
>>>> round signing is discouraged.
>>>
>>> Just this point.  You found a bug in our documentation if that is
>>> the case; it should not be giving that impression to you.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I am referring to par. (4) of Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> (emphasis mine):
>>
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>> *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.
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> If first submissions should be signed as well, then I find this quite
>> misleading.
>>
> 
> Please read on; While this part addresses PGP signing,
> which is discouraged at any round,
> later on we talk about another type of signing.
> (not cryptographic strong signing, but signing the intent;)
> the DCO in the commit message.
> 
> So no PGP signing (in any round of the patch).
> 
> But DCO signed (in anything that you deem useful for the
> project and that you are allowed to contribute)
>