From: Philip Oakley Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 21:44:09 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify distinction between sign-off and pgp-signing Message-ID: In-Reply-To: From: "Stefan Beller" > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:01 PM, wrote: >> From: Cornelius Weig >> >> 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 >> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano >> Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller >> --- >> >> 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/? Helped-by: Philip Oakley is sufficient for me (if that). > > 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 >> >