Re: [PATCH] Add a commit.signoff configuration variable to always use --signoff.

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 27, 2008, 08:44 UTC
Message-ID: <7v63l6f1mc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081227082620.GA5230@chistera.yi.org>

Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Does this sound good? If so, I'll send an amended patch (or should I send an
> incremental/extra one instead?):
>
> +commit.signoff::
> +       If set, 'git-commit' will always add a Signed-off-by line.

It is not a big deal, but my first reaction to the above was "S-o-b by whom? It misses details and does not say where to find them".

How about "if set, 'git commit' will behave as if '-s' option was given", so that we can leave the details of whose S-o-b line to generate and such to the description of "git commit -s" manual page?

Show 6 quoted lines

> +       Please use this option with care: by enabling it, you're stating
> +       that all your commits will invariably meet the S-o-b
> +       requirements for any project you send patches to. It's probably
> +       best to only use it from your private repositories' .git/config
> +       file, and only for projects who require a S-o-b as proof of
> +       provenance of the patch, and not of its correctness or quality.

Yeah, many projects do not even have S-o-b convention.

Show 11 quoted lines

>> By the way, please do not deflect away responses meant to you by using a
>> Mail-Followup-To header that points at the git mailing list.  It is rude.
>
> I set a M-F-T header because I prefer not to be CC'ed. I have other
> mechanisms in place that prevent me from missing replies to my messages
> (based on In-Reply-To/References headers).
>
> Nevertheless, if the list normally operates CC-based, I can see how pressing
> Reply-to-all and not seing the original autor in the recipient list can be
> offputting, so I'll stop setting M-F-T in my messages to git@. (Hopefully
> starting with this message already.)

Thanks.

Another problem that you seem to have missed about M-F-T is that while you solicited responses from general public by CC'ing the list (which allowed me to respond to you), by forcing the response go only to the list, you excluded people on the To: and Cc: list of your original message from my response. You required them to be subscribed to the list, if they want to be kept in the loop.