Re: Would it make sense to add a commit.signOff config?

> On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 6:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> --- c/Documentation/gitfaq.adoc
>> +++ w/Documentation/gitfaq.adoc
>> @@ -83,6 +83,21 @@ Windows would be the configuration `"C:\Program Files\Vim\gvim.exe" --nofork`,
>>  which quotes the filename with spaces and specifies the `--nofork` option to
>>  avoid backgrounding the process.
>>
>> +[[sign-off]]
>> +Why not have `commit.signoff` and other configuration variables?::
>> +       As it makes it harder to argue against one who tells the court
>> +       "the log message of the commit ends with a Signed-off-by
>> +       trailer by person X, but it is very plausible that it was done
>> +       by inertia without person X really intending to certify what
>> +       DCO says, hence the Signed-off-by trailer is meaningless", if
>> +       we add more publicized ways to add sign-off automatically, Git
>> +       does not (and will not) have a configuration variable to
>> +       enable the `--signoff` command line option it by default.
> 
> This feels kind of hard to parse for me.  Maybe it's just the lack of
> sentence breaks, particularly near the end.  Let me take a stab at an
> alternative:
> 
> Git intentionally does not (and will not) provide a configuration variable,
> such as `commit.signoff`, to automatically add `--signoff` by default.
> The reason is to protect the legal and intentional significance of a sign-off.
> If there were more automated and widely publicized ways for sign-offs to be
> appended, it would become easier for someone to argue later that a
> "Signed-off-by" trailer was just added out of habit or by automation,
> without the committer's full awareness or intent to certify their agreement
> with the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) or a similar statement.
> This would weaken the sign-off’s value and could undermine its credibility
> in legal or contractual situations. To uphold the integrity of a sign-off,
> Git only adds it when explicitly requested, rather than through automatic
> configuration settings.
> 
> Maybe the last sentence or two are a bit redundant and could be
> stricken.  Anyway, thoughts?