Subject: Re: SubmittingPatches: drop temporal reference for PGP signing

From: Cornelius Weig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:49:26 +0100

On 01/26/2017 09:58 PM, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Junio C Hamano" <[email-masked]>
>> Cornelius Weig <[email-masked]> 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 [email-masked]:

-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