On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 02:54:53PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:33:06AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 09:51:41AM +0200, Thomas Koch wrote: > > > On Sunday 24 May 2015 13:02:38 Thomas Koch wrote: > > > > Git supports signing of commits since version 1.7.9. Everybody should > > > > sign > > > > git commits always. > > > There is however the argument that by signing every commit by default one > > > may > > > accidentally publish a signature on some unverified code and somebody > > > else may > > > trust this code because of this. > > What's wrong with that? The signature means that you wrote it. It > doesn't mean that it is perfect. > > > Much worse, do you trust all your development machines with your private > > key? I clearly don't, as I neither have sole control over them, nor are > > all of them located in jurisdictions I can expect any help against > > seizure. > > With Debian packages I upload I can use debsign to sign a build after it > was built. Can I sign git commits / annotated tags in retrospect?
Since signing changes the sha1 of the commit, only if rewriting history isn't a problem. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150525164346.gc16...@grep.be