rich1.0npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uhttps://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0unjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-05-21 📝 Original message:On 05/21/2014 10:10 AM, Wladimir wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chris Beams <chris at beams.io> wrote: >> I'm personally happy to comply with this for any future commits, but wonder >> if you've considered the arguments against commit signing [1]? Note >> especially the reference therein to Linus' original negative opinion on >> signed commits [2]. > > Yes, I've read it. But would his alternative, signing tags, really > help us more here? Honest question: what would signed commits do to help us here anyway? What's the problem being solved? Unfortunately git places signatures in the history itself, so it's not like we could use easily use signatures to indicate acceptance after code review, like we could if we were using monotone for example. Git just wasn't designed for a commit-signing workflow.