On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> -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. > > > Wouldn't this also benefit from a forward reference to the section 5 on the > DOC signining? This would avoid Cornelius's case where he felt that section > 5 no longer applied. Yeah I agree. My patch was not the best shot by far.