Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) I'll
take it either way.
take it either way.
There are valid reasons to put it in the signed tag - that way you write it as you do the tag, and then "git pull-request" is pretty much entirely just automation.
entirely just automation.
But some people prefer to do the tag as just a marker (so the tag message may be basically worthless), and then write the explanation later in the email as they send it off. And I'll take that too, no problem.
problem.
And in all three cases I'll edit things for grammar and whitespace (indentation) etc, and may remove commentary that may be interesting for me doing the merge, but isn't relevant in the history once the merge is done.
merge is done.
take it either way.
There are valid reasons to put it in the signed tag - that way you write it as you do the tag, and then "git pull-request" is pretty much entirely just automation.
entirely just automation.
But some people prefer to do the tag as just a marker (so the tag message may be basically worthless), and then write the explanation later in the email as they send it off. And I'll take that too, no problem.
problem.
And in all three cases I'll edit things for grammar and whitespace (indentation) etc, and may remove commentary that may be interesting for me doing the merge, but isn't relevant in the history once the merge is done.
merge is done.
[...]
information about the pull request together in the tag.