Re: Git-commits mailing list feed.
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Date
- Apr 23, 2005, 20:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504231318510.2344@ppc970.osdl.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vis2d2rmv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > If that is the case, can't you do it without introducing this > new tag object, like this?
No, because I also want to sign the _name_ I gave it.
Otherwise somebody can take my "signed commit", and claim that I called it something else.
Just signing the commit is indeed sufficient to just say "I trust this commit". But I essentially what to also say what I trust it _for_ as well.
And sure, I could make a totally bogus "commit" object that just points to the original commit, uses the same "tree" from that original commit, and write what I want to trust into that commit. I then sign that, and create yet _another_ commit that has the signature (and the pointer to the just signed commit) in its commit message, and then I point to _that_ commit.
So yes, we can certainly do this with playing games with commits. That sounds singularly ugly, though, since just doing a "tag" object is a lot more straightforward, and really tells the world what's going on (and makes it easy for automated tools to just browse the object database and see "that's a tag").
Linus