3 ms·
Disappointed to see you folks get caught up on the question of 2FA and not a single mention of @mitsuhiko's discussion of solutions, such as vetting as a servic
by ctoth 4y ago
Disappointed to see you folks get caught up on the question of 2FA and not a single mention of @mitsuhiko's discussion of solutions, such as vetting as a service. Personally I think this is a very interesting idea, separating distribution from verification, and allowing for people to set their own criteria for vetting/verifying code. It would work well and scale from hobby projects all the way up to corporate behemoths. But sure, let's get stuck talking about 2FA and how slippery slope is a fallacy as if we haven't each one of us seen this sort of thing before.
- staticassertion 4y ago> Disappointed to see you folks get caught up on the question of 2FA and not a single mention of @mitsuhiko's discussion of solutions, such as vetting as a service. Comparing 2FA and vet is done at the end of the article and isn't, in my opinion, overly relevant. It's more of an example of "we could have solved this at a lower burden", which I don't believe is actually true (and I'd happily discuss that), but more importantly doesn't change the actual important bit of the article, which is about the relationship between users, maintainers, and distributors.