From: Cornelius Weig Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:49:26 GMT Subject: Re: SubmittingPatches: drop temporal reference for PGP signing Message-ID: <60e9abdf-cc37-33d8-e7eb-8a3370ffe1cc@tngtech.com> In-Reply-To: <4B89512D54614F09817EA9901A8B625D@PhilipOakley> On 01/26/2017 09:58 PM, Philip Oakley wrote: > From: "Junio C Hamano" >> Cornelius Weig 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 (...) > > 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