3 ms·
> Additionally, the defense offered against substituting binary blobs essentially comes down to "well, the kernel doesn't do that". Why should it matter? Git w
by Aldo_MX 10y ago
> Additionally, the defense offered against substituting binary blobs essentially comes down to "well, the kernel doesn't do that".
Why should it matter? Git was designed for the needs of the kernel project since the very beginning[1].
It is us, mere mortals, who are at fault for picking a tool that was not designed with our needs in mind, just because that tool happened to be better suited for our needs than the alternatives it was designed to replace.
The sky isn't falling, and if you really believe so, well, there's Mercurial, although you may also feel uneasy since Mercurial also asks you to don't panic[2]; Maybe you should just build your own SCM?
[1] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Getting-Started-A-Short-History-of-Git https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Getting-Started-A-Short-Histo...
[2] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/mpm/SHA1 https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/mpm/SHA1
- debatem1 10y agoI'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here. Git supports binary blobs. That's a choice that was made way back, and it is not the fault of the user for using that feature. If Linus didn't want people to use git for binary blobs he probably shouldn't have added support for it. Once he did add support for binary blobs he had an obligation to take the security of that component and its users seriously. And as I said before, although the risk is not sky-is-falling bad, it is present. I think even Linus agrees with that now or he wouldn't be working on a path forward at all.