On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:45:42PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Rich Freeman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Anything we do has to be automated to be of any real value. ??Ideally
> > if something goes wrong it should be as detectable as possible.
> Yeah, but you'd have to part of that at every developer's box.
> Can we just agree that having the tip of the main tree always signed
> will be enough for now, and postpone the rest of the discussion until
ToT is always going to be signed. If it *isn't* signed, either the
infra machinery is broken and not rejecting commits that it should
reject, or someone is trojaning the repo (either via an infra
compromise, local compromise, or via man in the middle).
One thing people need to keep in mind here is that when you sign the
commit, you're signing off on the history implicitly. Directly
addressing freeman's comment about "people sign the manifest but don't
look at what they're signing", when it comes to git signage, bluntly,
people doing that shouldn't have access- if they can't be arsed to
validate what they're signing, then trusting them w/ the tree is
Harsh, but frankly, sane people don't sign enforcable contracts w/out
verifying what they're signing (note the 'enforcable' bit, stated to
head off the EULA rathole discussion); this isn't any different