Re: SubmittingPatches: drop temporal reference for PGP signing
- From
- Cornelius Weig <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com>
- Date
- Jan 27, 2017, 10:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <60e9abdf-cc37-33d8-e7eb-8a3370ffe1cc@tngtech.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4B89512D54614F09817EA9901A8B625D@PhilipOakley>
On 01/26/2017 09:58 PM, Philip Oakley wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com> >> Cornelius Weig <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com> writes: >> >>> How about something along these lines? Does the forward reference >>> break the main line of thought too severly? >> >> I find it a bit distracting for those who know PGP signing has >> nothing to do with signing off your patch, but I think that is OK >> because they are not the primary target audience of this part of the >> document. > > Agreed. I this case the target audience was those weren't aware of that.
Yes, maybe the forward reference does give a wrong hint about a connection between sign-off and pgp-signing. However, I would still vote for the following change suggested by sbeller@google.com:
-Do not PGP sign your patch, -at least for now-. Most likely, your (...) +Do not PGP sign your patch. Most likely, your maintainer or other (...)
Show 5 quoted lines
> > Maybe even s/by signing off/by adding your Signed-off-by:/ to be sure > that the reader knows that it is _their certification_ that is being > sought. Even if it does double up on the 'your'. >
I don't think doubling on the 'your' will make the heading clearer. The main intention of this change is to avoid mixups with pgp-signing and that would IMHO not improve by that. Besides, I find the colon in the heading a bit awkward. Is the following version as expressive as with the colon?
-(5) Sign your work +(5) Certify your work by adding Signed-off-by