On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Cornelius Weig <cornelius.weig@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Yeah I agree. My patch was not the best shot by far. >> > > How about something along these lines? Does the forward reference > break the main line of thought too severly? > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index 08352de..c2b0cbe 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -216,12 +216,12 @@ 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, but do sign-off your work as explained in (5). > +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 +246,7 @@ patch. > *2* The mailing list: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > -(5) Sign your work > +(5) Certify your work by signing off > > To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the > "sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches I like it. Thanks, Stefan