{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-05-21\n📝 Original message:On 05/21/2014 10:10 AM, Wladimir wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chris Beams \u003cchris at beams.io\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I'm personally happy to comply with this for any future commits, but wonder\n\u003e\u003e if you've considered the arguments against commit signing [1]? Note\n\u003e\u003e especially the reference therein to Linus' original negative opinion on\n\u003e\u003e signed commits [2].\n\u003e \n\u003e Yes, I've read it. But would his alternative, signing tags, really\n\u003e help us more here?\n\nHonest question: what would signed commits do to help us here anyway?\nWhat's the problem being solved?\n\nUnfortunately git places signatures in the history itself, so it's not\nlike we could use easily use signatures to indicate acceptance after\ncode review, like we could if we were using monotone for example. Git\njust wasn't designed for a commit-signing workflow."}