Message ID | 20211128200647.147058-1-kernel@esmil.dk (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] Basic StarFive JH7100 RISC-V SoC support for 5.17 | expand |
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 9:06 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote: > > The following changes since commit fa55b7dcdc43c1aa1ba12bca9d2dd4318c2a0dbf: > > Linux 5.16-rc1 (2021-11-14 13:56:52 -0800) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > https://github.com/esmil/linux.git tags/for-soc > > for you to fetch changes up to 398d6e139782d1ce2c9822beb8effba0c9c51cc4: > > RISC-V: Add BeagleV Starlight Beta device tree (2021-11-28 20:07:09 +0100) > Hi Emil, I just got through my backlog of pull request and got to yours. All of the contents look fine but I noticed that there is no tag description. Please sign the tag with a gpg key and add a description that explains the contents of the branch in your own words, the same way you write the introductory mail of a patch series. This will become the description of the merge commit. Arnd
Hi Arnd, On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 22:30, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 9:06 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote: > > > > The following changes since commit fa55b7dcdc43c1aa1ba12bca9d2dd4318c2a0dbf: > > > > Linux 5.16-rc1 (2021-11-14 13:56:52 -0800) > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > https://github.com/esmil/linux.git tags/for-soc > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 398d6e139782d1ce2c9822beb8effba0c9c51cc4: > > > > RISC-V: Add BeagleV Starlight Beta device tree (2021-11-28 20:07:09 +0100) > > > > Hi Emil, > > I just got through my backlog of pull request and got to yours. All of > the contents look > fine but I noticed that there is no tag description. Please sign the > tag with a gpg > key and add a description that explains the contents of the branch in your own > words, the same way you write the introductory mail of a patch series. This will > become the description of the merge commit. Ah, gotcha. The thing is that I don't actually have a gpg key at the moment. I can generate one and use that to sign it, but then it won't be part of the web of trust. Alternatively I can just send it as a series of patches with a cover letter like I did before. That would be a little easier for me, but what do you prefer? /Emil
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:25 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 22:30, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 9:06 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote: > > I just got through my backlog of pull request and got to yours. All of > > the contents look > > fine but I noticed that there is no tag description. Please sign the > > tag with a gpg > > key and add a description that explains the contents of the branch in your own > > words, the same way you write the introductory mail of a patch series. This will > > become the description of the merge commit. > > Ah, gotcha. The thing is that I don't actually have a gpg key at the > moment. I can generate one and use that to sign it, but then it won't > be part of the web of trust. > Alternatively I can just send it as a series of patches with a cover > letter like I did before. That would be a little easier for me, but > what do you prefer? I'd prefer a pull request. The most important bit to me is actually the tag description, not the signature. I'll go through the contents once more anyway, which should be enough for me to merge it. A signed tag is still better than one without a signature, that way at least your key is part of the git history and we can confirm that another pull request came was signed with the same key, even if we don't know who you are ;-) When you create a new key, please follow the directions from https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst andyway, so you can add it to the keyring after you have collected the signatures. Arnd
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 13:17, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:25 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 22:30, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 9:06 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk> wrote: > > > I just got through my backlog of pull request and got to yours. All of > > > the contents look > > > fine but I noticed that there is no tag description. Please sign the > > > tag with a gpg > > > key and add a description that explains the contents of the branch in your own > > > words, the same way you write the introductory mail of a patch series. This will > > > become the description of the merge commit. > > > > Ah, gotcha. The thing is that I don't actually have a gpg key at the > > moment. I can generate one and use that to sign it, but then it won't > > be part of the web of trust. > > Alternatively I can just send it as a series of patches with a cover > > letter like I did before. That would be a little easier for me, but > > what do you prefer? > > I'd prefer a pull request. The most important bit to me is actually the > tag description, not the signature. I'll go through the contents once > more anyway, which should be enough for me to merge it. > > A signed tag is still better than one without a signature, that way at > least your key is part of the git history and we can confirm that another > pull request came was signed with the same key, even if we don't know > who you are ;-) > > When you create a new key, please follow the directions from > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst > andyway, so you can add it to the keyring after you have collected the > signatures. Nice, I'll try to follow that then. Thanks! /Emil