Re: ct-ng -> git repos instead of single patches

[Enrico Weigelt <weigelt at metux dot de>]

* Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The same applies to having single text-based patches.
> > But git gives the ability to cryptographically sign tags easily,
> > signature checks could be done fully automatic.
> >
> if the patch's origin cannot be trusted, signing it won't change anything...

In any case, it's the signer who's credibility matters and gets 
damaged if he/she signs some crap code. In the end it's all about 
trust networks - not just here, but in the whole society. If you 
mistrust _everybody_, you're standing _completely_ on your own and
will find it rather hard to live as an social individuum ;-p

Anyways, as Yann already pointed out, you're free to choose which
patches to trust completely on your own. If you don't trust Yann,
just use your own patches. 

As already said, this question is independent from the technical
approach of handling the changesets (patchfiles vs. git vs. something
else) - git just happens to provide certain stuff which could make
things a bit easier.


cu
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/

 phone:  +49 36207 519931  email: weigelt@metux.de
 mobile: +49 151 27565287  icq:   210169427         skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq