Programming

17672 readers

233 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Unsigned Commits (blog.glyph.im)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm curious to hear what the Lemmy programming community thinks of this!

The author argues against signing Git commits, stating that it adds unnecessary complexity to systems.
The author believes that signing commits perpetuates an engineering culture of blindly adopting complex tools.
The consequences of signing Git commits are likely to be subtle and not as dramatic as some may believe.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/vjDeK

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Great read.

I agree about the culture problem. People want to slap extra encryption into things, like a spoiler on a hatchback.

The core issue is that the problem being addressed by signed commits is already solved.

Did MajorHavoc write this commit?

If it has my username, on GitHub, you're confident it's my commit.

Alternately, it could be someone with so much access to my SSH keys, or to GitHib's infrastructure, that they could easily sign commits as me, anyway.

Signed commits might become more compelling when we start to favor fully open source federated git solutions. At that point, if I'm famously trustworthy, and the repo I submitted a signed commit to is not, then my signature could mean something.

But even then, there's the risk that someone interprets my 4 minute typo fix as my having some clue whether the repo is actually safe to use...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

If it has my username, on GitHub, you’re confident it’s my commit.

Apparently, that's not true: https://dev.to/martiliones/how-i-got-linus-torvalds-in-my-contributors-on-github-3k4g

However, it's a pretty old article - maybe it's already fixed? I'll have to try that.

EDIT: It still works, and you can just use the github noreply address, which is [email protected] . The commit gets linked to their profile, and is shown on their profile page, has their username and profile picture. I haven't figured out any difference between legit and impersonated commit so far, but maybe it's hidden somwhere in the repo administration.

So, there you have it. That's what PGP signing is for.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Nice.

That's enough to make me reconsider signing. Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Anyone can slap your name and email on a commit and pretend you wrote it

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

On GitHub, the account that pushed the commit is already fairly evident.

Commits pushed from my GitHub account are differentiated from commits that are not.

I don't want huge centralized Git infrastructure, but while we have it, signed commits are less compelling.

And I'm not saying I love the current state of code authorship verification, either.