From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS8560 212.227.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 992AC2018E; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from virtualbox ([37.24.141.250]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKcdH-1bbWwb1Xlf-0023HH; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:08:14 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:08:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Johannes Schindelin X-X-Sender: virtualbox@virtualbox To: Eric Wong cc: Philip Oakley , Duy Nguyen , Jeff King , Stefan Beller , meta@public-inbox.org, git@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Jakub_Nar=C4=99bski?= , Arif Khokar Subject: Re: Working with public-inbox.org [Was: [PATCH] rev-parse: respect core.hooksPath in --git-path] In-Reply-To: <20160824191651.GC8578@whir> Message-ID: References: <20160819150340.725bejnps6474u2e@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160824191651.GC8578@whir> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ULANjYi7vCYuQpZCa7krffeQJV30WbEKCQK28splF+eZfuhmRAI VtTSp9cqRJQaDbnIf5OqQiM+vl3fSYGLDV56dBKoyxysg5jpyKWHTISm/Tg19J2I2997glJ a11i/IEYRvmCJyke1b8x5G7ODMKBMIya0LFGewJLwlhvvAwX6XSBhBN9omc1J44ol9HrLIG XyiX/uP7RYEUqEYEfZGfA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:GOwDxg4+nJI=:g7R56YutjOJA2UEqYRKOvQ Pzp/ClwRtt1wt//Qeanyx3gl3uJd0piMQ8LeaOZweCwFU2Px5RxAMpqsMxT4D4CDaLvm5p+qu CzqjTiVGy1x4cJbbXKnzTkgOr1RnH55VrzbS72vVfB57F//SF9cl0A2U7qhzo/BaQtSTWL8G8 alZzQUgHX84C948U9g7/px+fDJR5+0bEbEb8+yu7x8KaLRsL06pVt8InYtgk+q26tqBh+Hr1W VKvsDoJS1DGlV0XAkXeCk+FQLPuc682ZhEAUY0UxX+hc6W88re2hm2tLqBCTmV8p/rq2Crdf8 deFJP+iXNjdT1enMPLFIjWrYDGO9gHAqFKFQ7LJ8/Imvq5obel4d1cLCbovjUSovenyTGlPLM ClGzbSl9tiBydC54IwXvh9Ez4z2A8JygGcTXohEDGeJg+YCEOA8hdweSPo7QndbdNy4a7+6vF zepEQoRiRYJwvdpxpAwDtO9VoOpVJhkLHvQqZ7nogeD0nkFA3txSFsQ/E+g8wRD772zlAz0TL cttPzZ9JMh8nEpJcrIx1x74WheMZ/brTbcbK9g3yuz7NDkOUnCRGuXvZjniiTdzsX/aHMrauH wvWJnA0H6yuL0k96puwPx8AHqI4IJxWFE2YnPb9sbkqS4nVKfw3bq39sT2EEln/J/U/TWCcoA l+OJ13DcTlK4ULV7IBa08rRcCRs4Z2qkPuWRIA59IkB9AX+BWRO8COHPyh7wjOkARsqJa7RR/ H2vGR4DObHy/ko/XMokg2m7362PKNDwJy8cvltOK3ooXf1V38ORciiYfIsm6i8AEUMq/0kc75 nDUSVJo List-Id: Hi Eric, On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Now, with somebody like me who would lose a lot when destroying trust, > > it is highly unlikely. But it is possible that in between the hundreds > > of sincere contributors a bad apple tries to sneak in bad stuff. > > Yes, I would never mix reviews + patch applications of emails vs > git-fetched data. Well, such a categorical statement seems to exclude all convenience I had in mind. My idea was that, say, a web service running on a trusted server with a trusted code base could send mails that would be trusted to contain correct SHA-1 information, allowing for a review in the mail, but still use the much, much more convenient Git tools to actually work on the code. I really hope that not everybody is so categorically against introducing much needed convenience. Ciao, Dscho