Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- Date
- Nov 3, 2011, 01:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CA+55aFx0oCd6-sh0psYxho-s=sHAK0RHXJHfLewRuUcdXzxZbg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAJo=hJv5nAKH_ptYSWfMvFQv0Dj+naPXK35wSzKYkfPOYsWkxg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
>> >> So I really think that signing the top commit itself is fundamentally wrong. > > I really disagree. I like the signed commit approach.
If you like it so much, go ahead and use them.
But stop with the crazy excuses for the downsides. I explained exactly why amending is stupid and wrong, and why empty commits are f*cking moronic. But even apart from the *technical* problems with the stupid mis-designed feature, I explained why it was fundamentally broken from a workflow standpoint too.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't use them - go ahead and use the feature if you like it. But please spare me your excuses for stupid workarounds that come from the fact that they aren't a good match for sane workflows.
Linus