From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sean" Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2712.10.10.10.24.1114799620.squirrel@linux1> References: (message from Linus Torvalds on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:56:30 -0700 (PDT)) <200504291808.LAA25870@emf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, mpm@selenic.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 29 20:28:59 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DRaDp-0001ZD-BU for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:28:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262880AbVD2Sdz (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:33:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262879AbVD2Sdz (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:33:55 -0400 Received: from simmts8.bellnexxia.net ([206.47.199.166]:46791 "EHLO simmts8-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262877AbVD2Sdu (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:33:50 -0400 Received: from linux1 ([67.71.124.169]) by simmts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050429183345.DBBO1623.simmts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@linux1>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:33:45 -0400 Received: from linux1 (linux1.attic.local [127.0.0.1]) by linux1 (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3TIXaId000787; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:33:40 -0400 Received: from 10.10.10.24 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sean) by linux1 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:33:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200504291808.LAA25870@emf.net> To: "Tom Lord" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, April 29, 2005 2:08 pm, Tom Lord said: > The confusion here is that you are talking about computational complexity > while I am talking about complexity measured in hours of labor. > > You are assuming that the programmer generating the signature blindly > trusts the tool to generate the signed document accurately. I am > saying that it should be tractable for human beings to read the documents > they are going to sign. Developers obviously _do_ read the changes they submit to a project or they would lose their trusted status. That has absolutely nothing to do with signing, it's the exact same way things work today, without sigs. It's not "blind trust" to expect a script to reproducibly sign documents you've decided to submit to a project. The signature is not a QUALITY guarantee in and of itself. It doesn't mean you have any additional responsibility to remove all bugs before submitting. Conversely, not signing something doesn't mean you can submit crap. See? Signing something does not change the quality guarantee one way or the other. It does not put any additional demands on the developer, so it's fine to have an automated script do it. It's just a way to avoid impersonations. Sean