From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E291E1F437 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:45:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933382AbdA0Ron (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:44:43 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57167 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932953AbdA0Rog (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:44:36 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30896111F; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:43:24 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=mZdh0aGubNSflnpebspbV8S0+OA=; b=L4ExQe ZtiUYmbK0EUgR9rFp3SH8mD0U5eGbJTIb+tneplXs6koTMaBkjCx5vJ1f9GGoeD7 NVJgvE9AdzKxEK8TuViHH2S01qM/+ZkNXcexDJCDf2mPLhMpUAgu5dEFWTFbWpoB OHZ5e+97RvM5KoJ+ZiMi1UJs3XDFRkrNeL3Lk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=r2s1Bqc+VBSqFR5HcxfuwdRoSsorR/6A eru59RQNxF0MWqRWdt7uPgLmysh9oB7CDHA1W30l1aOHv8lVkSf06hEnN3vm8Idc VFCOEGn9QuyH3O2Md8Rpt5Bzz5NtGnRMb1Tp/hW6/EaJYbw4UUmtx2ro299xHwS4 Xgh6wP3Cu+4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB706111E; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B5CF6111D; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:43:23 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Cornelius Weig Cc: Philip Oakley , Stefan Beller , Johannes Sixt , bitte.keine.werbung.einwerfen@googlemail.com, git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SubmittingPatches: drop temporal reference for PGP signing References: <923cd4e4-5c9c-4eaf-0fea-6deff6875b88@tngtech.com> <20170125002116.22111-1-sbeller@google.com> <33E354BCDB9A4192B69B9B399381659E@PhilipOakley> <4B89512D54614F09817EA9901A8B625D@PhilipOakley> <60e9abdf-cc37-33d8-e7eb-8a3370ffe1cc@tngtech.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:43:22 -0800 In-Reply-To: <60e9abdf-cc37-33d8-e7eb-8a3370ffe1cc@tngtech.com> (Cornelius Weig's message of "Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:49:26 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 19E0B1CE-E4B8-11E6-BB48-FE3F13518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Cornelius Weig writes: > -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 (...) It has been quite a while since we wrote that "at least for now", so it probably makes sense to drop it. >> 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 I am leaning towards agreeing with Philip, and my gut feeling says the presense of the colon, would help a lot. It would visually click to readers what we are talking about. At the same time, I think ending a section header with a colon would be seen as "awkward". I would have written it more like this to avoid it: ... by adding "Signed-off-by: " line I personally do not mind having "your" there, either, but I can see that a section header wants to be kept shorter.