Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify distinction between sign-off and pgp-signing

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:01 PM,  <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com> wrote:
>> From: Cornelius Weig <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com>
>>
>> The documentation for submission discourages pgp-signing, but demands
>> a proper sign-off by contributors. However, when skimming the headings,
>> the wording of the section for sign-off could mistakenly be understood
>> as concerning pgp-signing. Thus, new contributors could oversee the
>> necessary sign-off.
>>
>> This commit improves the wording such that the section about sign-off
>> cannot be misunderstood as pgp-signing. In addition, the paragraph about
>> pgp-signing is changed such that it avoids the impression that
>> pgp-signing could be relevant at later stages of the submission.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cornelius Weig <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>>     This patch summarizes the suggested changes.
>>
>>     As I don't know what is appropriate, I took the liberty to add 
>> everybody's
>>     sign-off who was involved in the discussion in alphabetic order.
>
> Heh, my first though was to conclude you haven't read the
> sign off part, yet apart from the changed header.
> /me goes back and actually reads the DCO again.
> And actually these sign offs were there in other patches in this area,
> so you'd claim (a) that yours was just created partly by you and having
> other patches that were also signed off (b), whose sign offs you
> merely copy over to here.
>
> And then after reading I realized I slightly confused the signing
> myself as the sign offs are also used to track the flow of a patch.
> These sign offs suggest that you made the patch initially, then
> passed it to Junio, then to Philip and then to me.
> And Junio will sign it again when applying the patch.
>
> So maybe s/signed-off-by/helped-by/?

>
> The patch with the aggregation looks good to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan
>
>>
>>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 ++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches 
>> b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> index 08352de..3faf7eb 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> @@ -216,12 +216,11 @@ 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. 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 +245,7 @@ patch.
>>       *2* The mailing list: git@vger.kernel.org
>>
>>
>> -(5) Sign your work
>> +(5) Certify your work by adding your "Signed-off-by: " line
>>
>>  To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the
>>  "sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches
>> --
>> 2.10.2
>>
>