Re: OK to submit l10n PR with signed commits?

[Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1758 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:02:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 06:49:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > So I'm interested in GPG-sign my commits (that is, ``git commit -S``) for l10n
> >> > pull request (which I should submit in this cycle). Is it OK to do that?
> >> > Drawbacks?
> >> 
> >> Instead of talking first about drawbacks, we should consider the
> >> upsides.  Why would we even want to see your GPG signature, when
> >> most of us do not even have your GPG public key in our keychains?
> >> 
> >> What are we trying to achieve by doing this?
> >
> > Just to ensure that PR commits are really from the respective authors.
> 
> Yeah, but my point was that it would not ensure, because practically
> nobody has ways to validate the signature was created with your
> private key, and public keyservers have been tainted long time ago
> with fake keys with the same fingerprint, so would not work as a
> good way to obtain your public key and be sure it is yours.
> 
> If this were "because we would want to eat our own dogfood", and if
> we find bugs in our code when different person sign their commit
> with their own signature scheme (i.e. you may sign yours with your
> GPG key, somebody else may use their SSH key, and yet other people
> use their X.509 certs, it might give us valuable insights, but the
> resulting history may be irrevocably tainted if the bug is on the
> signing side (if the bug is on the verification side, that is OK).
> 
> Thanks.

OK, thanks! I will stick to unsigned commits then.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]