From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 01:19:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)
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