On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Andy Parkins <andyparkins@xxxxxxxxx> 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 - 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