From: Collin Funk Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2025 23:52:25 GMT Subject: Re: Would it make sense to add a commit.signOff config? Message-ID: <87zf7k39l2.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano writes: > Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón writes: > >> this was discussed recently[0] and the point that was made is that SOA are >> meant to be relevant mainly in open source contexts and should be explicitly >> given. >> >> Carlo >> >> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq4iwvfx8s.fsf@gitster.g/ > > Thanks for a spelunking starter. > > Perhaps we should resurrect a proposed patch from 2020 (which no > longer apply cleanly, but quoted to show what the additinoal text > said). > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqpnfw8gyn.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/ > > to save time from potential contributors? I do not want to see new > contributors feeling they wasted their time after putting their > effort. Sounds like a good idea to me since it has come up a few times and, at least from that thread, there is wide agreement it shouldn't be added. > diff --git a/Documentation/git-commit.txt b/Documentation/git-commit.txt > index ced5a9beab..1909551087 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-commit.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-commit.txt > @@ -171,6 +171,13 @@ The `-m` option is mutually exclusive with `-c`, `-C`, and `-F`. > the rights to submit this work under the same license and > agrees to a Developer Certificate of Origin > (see http://developercertificate.org/ for more information). > ++ > +As it makes it harder to argue against one who tells the court "that > +log message ends with a SoB by person X but it is very plausible > +that it was done by inertia without person X really intending to > +certify what DCO says, and the SoB is meaningless." to more > +publicized ways to add SoB automatically, Git does not (and will not) > +have a configuration variable to enable it by default. I think it is a bit more clear to just write "Signed-off-by" instead of using the abbreviation SoB. That isn't used elsewhere, as far as I can tell. Collin