Junio C Hamano writes:
Regarding other problems, the fact that we are having this discussion is indication enough, isn't it? If it didn't exist, we wouldn't have had folks who used it as an excuse to promote commit.signoff in the first place.
I definitely understand your concern about diluting the meaning of signoffs. What separates this patch is that it's not suggesting a config option out of feature parity, but because enabling commit.signoff is itself a deliberate, repository specific certification, which is arguably more meaningful than habitually typing -s for each commit or using a global shell alias.
The repository specificity is particularly important here. Currently users work around this with shell aliases, which are global rather than scoped to a repository, making commit.signoff in practice a more precise mechanism for expressing their intent about what to certify.
Would strengthening the documentation to emphasise that setting commit.signoff is a deliberate, repository-specific certification address your concern about diluting the meaning of signoffs?
