Re: SubmittingPatches: drop temporal reference for PGP signing

["Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>]

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.
>
> I however am more worried that it may be misleading to mention these
> two in the same sentence.  Those who skim these paragraphs without
> knowing the difference between the two may get a false impression
> that these two may somehow be related because they are mentioned in
> the same sentence.
>
> The retitling of section (5) you did, without any other change,
> might be sufficient.  It may also help to be even more explicit in
> the updated title, i.e. s/by signing off/by adding Signed-off-by:/

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'.

>
> Thanks.
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches 
>> b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> index 08352de..c2b0cbe 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> @@ -216,12 +216,12 @@ that it will be postponed.
>>  Exception:  If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
>>  you to re-send them using MIME, that is OK.
>>
>> -Do not PGP sign your patch, at least for now.  Most likely, your
>> -maintainer or other people on the list would not have your PGP
>> -key and would not bother obtaining it anyway.  Your patch is not
>> -judged by who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin has a
>> -far better chance of being accepted than a patch from a known,
>> -respected origin that is done poorly or does incorrect things.
>> +Do not PGP sign your patch, but do sign-off your work as explained in 
>> (5).
>> +Most likely, your maintainer or other people on the list would not have 
>> your
>> +PGP key and would not bother obtaining it anyway. Your patch is not 
>> judged by
>> +who you are; a good patch from an unknown origin has a far better chance 
>> of
>> +being accepted than a patch from a known, respected origin that is done 
>> poorly
>> +or does incorrect things.
>>
>>  If you really really really really want to do a PGP signed
>>  patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a text/plain message
>> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ patch.
>>       *2* The mailing list: git@vger.kernel.org
>>
>>
>> -(5) Sign your work
>> +(5) Certify your work by signing off
>>
>>  To improve tracking of who did what, we've borrowed the
>>  "sign-off" procedure from the Linux kernel project on patches
>