Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)
- From
Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
- Date
- Nov 4, 2011, 14:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20111104145908.GA3903@thunk.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CA+55aFyRawm9CoJMiEXDFCX4YTidPOiV4oqSS2d7nNv7Ecw8BQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:09:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> I personally dislike it, and don't really think it's a wonderful thing > at all. I really does have real downsides: > > - internal signatures really *are* a disaster for maintenance. You > can never fix them if they need fixing (and "need fixing" may well be > "you want to re-sign things after a repository format change")
Note that a repository format change will break a bunch of other things as well, including references in commit descriptions ("This fixes a regression introduced in commit 42DEADBEEF") So if SHA-1 is in danger of failing in way that would threaten git's use of it (highly unlikely), we'd probably be well advised to find a way to add a new crypto checksum (i.e., SHA-256) in parallel, but keep the original SHA-1 checksum for UI purposes.
> - they are ugly as heck, and you really don't want to see them in > 99.999% of all cases.
So we can make them be hidden from "git log" and "gik" by default. That bit is a bit gross, I agree, but 3rd party verification really is a good thing, which I'm hoping can be added in a relatively clean fashion.
- Ted