Archives
Archives
| From: | hasufell <hasufell@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: git security (SHA-1) | ||
| Date: | Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:19:00 | ||
| Message-Id: | 541DEF37.4020702@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: git security (SHA-1) by Kent Fredric |
||
| 1 | Kent Fredric: |
| 2 | > |
| 3 | > He is proposing quite the opposite. He's saying "git is not secure in this |
| 4 | > way, but lets not let that stop us, migrate and fix that after the fact or |
| 5 | > we'll never get around to it, because all this debate is the perfect being |
| 6 | > the enemy of the good". |
| 7 | > |
| 8 | |
| 9 | I didn't see him saying that. It rather sounds like we want to have |
| 10 | thick signed Manifests and break pull requests and whatnot. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: git security (SHA-1) | Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: git security (SHA-1) | Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> |