Re: Commit signing

From: Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
Date: Jan 15, 2007, 13:01 UTC
Message-ID: <200701151301.l0FD1vPg007623@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl>
In-Reply-To: <andyparkins@gmail.com>

Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> Again true.  What has that to do with Git though?  Why shouldn't Git have 
> features that let people with different methods of development from you use 
> it?

As long as nobody else ends up paying the cost...

>     It is certainly true that signed commits /is/ a feature.  And it's a 
> feature that some people might want.  If there isn't a technical argument 
> against it, what does it matter?

It needs to be accomodated in the commit object format, so it means an(other) incompatible change there. Need to add checking for properly signed commits all the way when slurping in a stream of changes. Need to set the whole up so it can bail out as if nothing ever happened in case one commit doesn't check out (this is probably easy).

> (Note: it doesn't matter enough to me that I would put the time in, I'm 
> arguing in the abstract really - should features be kept out because they 
> allow a development method we would find distasteful?)

I'd vote for "If somebody needs this bad enough, they are free to fork pgit ('paranoid git')", and add "if the changes look sane, and don't screw up the base (too much), we'll talk about merging back".

Open source development, scratch your own itch, bazaar and all that.

-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                    Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria             +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile               Fax:  +56 32 2797513