4 ms·
It's not a matter of trusting the signer. Every commit includes the hash of its parent, and thus the combined hashes of all its ancestors. Signing just the last
by goerz 6y ago
It's not a matter of trusting the signer. Every commit includes the hash of its parent, and thus the combined hashes of all its ancestors. Signing just the last commits signs the entire chain.
- swsieber 6y agoRight... but where did the signer get the previous commits?
- goerz 6y agoOh, I see what you mean. But a signed commit doesn’t imply that the signer vouches for the code or it’s history (unless they say they do, but then you have to believe them that they reviewed the entire history). What it does do is to guarantee that after a commit is signed, nobody can come in and retroactively alter the history of the repo.
- nerdponx 6y agoWhat if there are 5 unsigned consecutive commits somewhere in the middle of the chain? Or is the idea that you still can't alter anything in that unsigned section without altering the signed commits at the ends?
- goerz 6y agoYes, that’s exactly the idea
- swsieber 6y agoThat's true. I guess we were approaching worries from opposite ends. * Did it make it to the signer intact? * Did it make it from the signer the signer intact? And a single signed commit is good for the second question and only (which is still a big step up from no signatures!)