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

From: Cornelius Weig <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com>
To: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>,
	bitte.keine.werbung.einwerfen@googlemail.com,
	"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	thomas.braun@virtuell-zuhause.de,
	John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] completion: recognize more long-options
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:11:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <923cd4e4-5c9c-4eaf-0fea-6deff6875b88@tngtech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79ka0PSb9L71tkiacZS+FH=YbUBrQr6a5UQu7ochpihRqEQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/25/2017 12:43 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> 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)
> 

Right, it's crystal clear now. What confused me was the combination of

> Do not PGP sign your patch, at least *for now*. (...)

and then the section with heading

> (5) *Sign* your work

So I didn't even bother to read (5) because I deemed it irrelevant. I
think if it had said `(5) *Certify* your work` this would not have happened.