[PATCH libgpg-error] doc: clarify patch submission workflow
tmz at pobox.com
Thu Feb 1 21:55:48 CET 2018
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Thu 2018-02-01 16:20:25 +0000, Damien Goutte-Gattat wrote:
>> On 02/01/2018 01:24 PM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>> + - send your patches to that list, preferably PGP/MIME signed.
>> As far as I know, git send-email does not allow to do that. (Or if it
>> does, I never found how to do it--when I looked for that feature, I
>> found nothing else than an a old bug report complaining precisely that
>> it was not supported .)
>> It seems strange to ask for "preferably PGP/MIME signed" patches and to
>> suggest a workflow which does not support it.
> maybe if we state a preference it can be used to encourage bugfixes
> elsewhere in the stack? it's certainly possible to prefer something
> that you can't currently have easily.
I have my doubts that git send-email will ever directly
support PGP/MIME. But if signed patches are desired,
there's no reason not use git format-patch to generate a
patch (whether a single patch or a series with a cover
letter) and then use any decent mail client to send the
Using git send-email is generally just convenient for folks
whose mail clients would otherwise mangle the whitespace,
wrap the text, or otherwise bugger the patch content.
It's been a while since I've delved deeply into the PGP/MIME
specs, but does it ensure that no such whitespace mangling
will occur? Obviously, once the message is generated the
signature ensures nothing is changed. What I'm not sure of
is whether any part of the specification allows or requires
any sort of whitespace or other changes.
Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 543 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gnupg-devel