On Monday 2007 January 15 11:08, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > It is not only paranoid. It is bad practice. True. However, I don't see that it is Git's place to dictate policy. If a company wants to use Git and wants to use it in an oppressive and inefficient manner, while alienating their developers, who are we to stand in their way? > Please have a look at the Linux kernel development, or for that matter, > git development itself. Here, people care, people trust, people respect > each other (sometimes YELLING, to keep discussions exciting). And the > result is: nice code. 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? 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? (Note: it doesn't matter enough to me that I would put the time in, I'm arguing in the abstract really - should features be kept out because they allow a development method we would find distasteful?) Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE andyparkins@xxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html