Re: Commit signing

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 15, 2007, 10:43 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0701151137430.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070115102727.GC12257@spearce.org>

Hi,

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

> I've never met anyone on this mailing list in person, but the quality 
> (or lack thereof sometimes) is evident in my work, and since its all 
> peer-reviewed anyway Junio finds little risk in incorporating the good 
> stuff into git.git.  No certificate required.

Exactly. I think it is one of the reasons monotone is so unpopular (at least as far as I am concerned): it makes the start really cumbersome. And in the end you gain nothing.

And you see what the result is when looking into corporate projects. More often than not, bureaucratic procedures (e.g. tracking time, meetings, specifications) supersede quality-assuring procedures (e.g. permanent updates on the TODO list, code review, discussion on implementation details), and quite often, the code just sucks.

My favourite example is when I found 34 different (!) implementations of a tree structure in the same project.

So, if you start relying on the validity of code just because somebody signed it, you will reap trouble.

Ciao, Dscho