| 1 |
On 21 September 2014 09:18, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Kent Fredric: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > He is proposing quite the opposite. He's saying "git is not secure in |
| 6 |
> this |
| 7 |
> > way, but lets not let that stop us, migrate and fix that after the fact |
| 8 |
> or |
| 9 |
> > we'll never get around to it, because all this debate is the perfect |
| 10 |
> being |
| 11 |
> > the enemy of the good". |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I didn't see him saying that. It rather sounds like we want to have |
| 15 |
> thick signed Manifests and break pull requests and whatnot. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
<<< |
| 20 |
I'm personally in the camp that I'd rather see ANY git migration |
| 21 |
happen sooner rather than later and I'd rather migrate first and then |
| 22 |
fix any signature issues later. Simple gpg signed commits secured |
| 23 |
only with sha1 seems good enough to start with. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Rich |
| 27 |
>>> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Kent |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives