git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

From
KSKevin Smith <yarcs@qualitycode.com>
Date
May 3, 2005, 00:24 UTC
Message-ID
<4276C4A4.6020103@qualitycode.com>
In-Reply-To
<200505022106.OAA28850@emf.net>
Tom Lord wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> More bluntly, given just a (1),(3) pair, Bob is extending his vulnerability
> to include a reliance on Alice's patch-computing tools.   If Alice were
> known to be signing a (1),(2) pair which she had reviewed in detail,
> then Bob's vulnerability stays at just his local patch-handling tools
> and his general trust of Alice.

I'm no expert, but it seems the opposite argument could be made as well. By signing (1)(3), I am asserting that (3) is, in fact, what I intended the end result to be. If I instead sign (1)(2), then it is possible that your patching tools might end up producing something other than (3).

Personally, I still like the self-contained nature of signing (1)(2), but I haven't yet heard a security argument in its favor.

Kevin
Previous: Tom Lord
Message 3 of 3 in “Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark”
  1. Horst von BrandApr 29, 2005
  2. Tom LordMay 2, 2005
  3. Kevin SmithMay 3, 2005

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.