Message-ID: <537D0CE1.3000608@monetize.io>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:30:25 -0700
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Organization: Monetize.io Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CA+s+GJBNWh0Py9KB4Y+B19ACeHOygtkLrPw5SbZ0SrVs50pqvg@mail.gmail.com>	<7B48B9D4-5FB0-42CA-A462-C20D3F345A9A@beams.io>
	<CA+s+GJC8=OHmmF7fc-fT8fQDWE1uNcCS8-ELEKr0MjQ4CpbPBA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJC8=OHmmF7fc-fT8fQDWE1uNcCS8-ELEKr0MjQ4CpbPBA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] PSA: Please sign your git commits
Precedence: list

On 05/21/2014 10:10 AM, Wladimir wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chris Beams <chris@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.