From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:47:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Commit signing
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701151143470.2577@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <200701151301.l0FD1vPg007623@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl>

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Horst H. von Brand wrote:

> Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Again true.  What has that to do with Git though?  Why shouldn't Git have 
> > features that let people with different methods of development from you use 
> > it?
> 
> As long as nobody else ends up paying the cost...
> 
> >     It is certainly true that signed commits /is/ a feature.  And it's a 
> > feature that some people might want.  If there isn't a technical argument 
> > against it, what does it matter?
> 
> It needs to be accomodated in the commit object format, so it means
> an(other) incompatible change there.

Not really.  Nothing prevents from having a signature block at the 
bottom of the commit message, just like signed tags.

> Need to add checking for properly
> signed commits all the way when slurping in a stream of changes. Need to
> set the whole up so it can bail out as if nothing ever happened in case one
> commit doesn't check out (this is probably easy).

... and if you don't care about the signature you may ignore it 
entirely.


Nicolas