Kent Fredric: > > He is proposing quite the opposite. He's saying "git is not secure in this > way, but lets not let that stop us, migrate and fix that after the fact or > we'll never get around to it, because all this debate is the perfect being > the enemy of the good". >
I didn't see him saying that. It rather sounds like we want to have thick signed Manifests and break pull requests and whatnot.
