On 05/30, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:52:55PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> > Add a mention of the security mailing list to the README, and to
> > Documentation/SubmittingPatches.. 2caa7b8d27 ("git manpage: note
> > git-secur...@googlegroups.com", 2018-03-08) already added it to the
> > man page, but for developers either the README, or the documentation
> > on how to contribute (SubmittingPatches) may be the first place to
> > look.
> >
> > Use the same wording as we already have on the git-scm.com website and
> > in the man page for the README, while the wording is adjusted in
> > SubmittingPatches to match the surrounding document better.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
> > README.md | 3 +++
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> > b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> > index 27553128f5..c8f9deb391 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> > @@ -176,6 +176,12 @@ that is fine, but please mark it as such.
> > [[send-patches]]
> > === Sending your patches.
> >
> > +:security-ml: footnoteref:[security-ml,The Git Security mailing list:
> > git-secur...@googlegroups.com]
> > +
> > +Before sending any patches, please note that patches that may be
> > +security relevant should be submitted privately to the Git Security
> > +mailing list{security-ml}, instead of the public mailing list.
> > +
> > Learn to use format-patch and send-email if possible. These commands
> > are optimized for the workflow of sending patches, avoiding many ways
> > your existing e-mail client that is optimized for "multipart/*" mime
> > @@ -259,6 +265,13 @@ patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a
> > text/plain message
> > that starts with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----`. That is
> > not a text/plain, it's something else.
> >
> > +:security-ml-ref: footnoteref:[security-ml]
>
> My only feedback here is that using the footnoteref syntax to refer to
> the previous footnote potentially makes this a little less readable for
> plain text users, although it also reduces duplication. I'm not sure I
> feel strongly one way or the other on this.
Yeah, using the plain footnote syntax we end up with two footnotes
that are exactly the same, which felt a little awkward. But I don't
feel strongly either, so if the consensus is to duplicate the footnote
for better readability in plain text I'm happy to change that.
To really improve the readability we'd probably have to duplicate the
attribute as well, which I wanted to avoid (altough it's not
completely possible with the footnoteref syntax either).
> Otherwise, this looked fine to me.
> --
> brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
> OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
