Re: [Qemu-devel] Fix build break during configuration on musl-libc based Linux systems.

[Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3335 bytes --]

On 02/19/2017 01:02 AM, Chad Joan wrote:
> development work.  There are no user accounts, just root.  I have tried to
> avoid putting any personal information on it.  If I am on it, then I'm
> editing files in /etc or installing system-wide software.  I'm realizing
> that I might have to change this a bit due to the WIP nature of the
> hardened-musl profile: ultimately I *am* doing development work on it, and
> that kind of snuck up on me.  If I give myself a user account, then
> authoring patches with git (and using send-email) becomes somewhat more
> practical (putting smtp login information onto the machine still bugs me).

You don't have to store your SMTP passwords; git is smart enough to ask
you interactively if you (intentionally) omit the passwords from
.gitconfig.  But I agree that even storing your SMTP address and
username in configs can be a bit hairier than you want on some boxes.

> Still, I can't imagine I'm the only person who runs into this kind of thing
> and wants to write quick patches on an impersonal machine.

There's always the option to float the patches back to a personal
machine before posting to the list (yes, it requires more work on your
end, but if it serves as a nice manual wall between your internal and
external machines, it may well be worth the discipline).

> 
> 
>> [...]
>>
>> But nothing requires you to set up a certificate to submit a patch.  I'm
>> not sure which piece of the documentation got you steered in that
>> direction, but gpg signing of patches is only required of maintainers,
>> not contributors (or maybe you're hinting at the extra effort required
>> to set up gmail as a valid 'git send-email' target, to which I have no
>> experience, but which starts to leave the realm of qemu-specific
>> instructions into something where it would be better to link to a good
>> git setup tutorial, if one exists).
>>
>>
> I think this is just language ambiguity and confirmation bias doing their
> thing.  Usually when I read "you have to sign this" in an OSS context, I
> think of cryptographic signing.  I haven't encountered the requirement for
> non-cryptographic signing before.  Language is arbitrary and we all have
> different experiences and backgrounds.

Is it sufficient to just give the example of 'git commit -s' being the
trick to automatically adding the necessary Signed-off-by: line?  (Of
course, automating the process like that, without actually reading
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=f6f94e2ab1b33f0082ac22d71f66385a60d8157f#n297
to understand what it means and that you actually comply, is risky)

> 
> This is one of the reasons why I suggest a simple example: it would be both
> very concise and unambiguous.  If there are no signing steps in the example
> then you don't even need to spend words telling the reader that
> cryptographic signing is unnecessary.  It'll be implied.
> 
> Thankfully, this is a separate concern from the 'git send-email' thing.

'git send-email -s' can also add Signed-off-by: lines, if you didn't add
them earlier (but only if you use send-email, rather than attachments) :)

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 604 bytes --]