avgcorrection

Well first of all MGS3 is superior in most respects. One of them being story and narrative.

It was more like about 10 years before that? The narrative was inspired by Jean Baudrillard. The guy who also inspired The Matrix.[1] 10 years before that game he was talking about the Hyper Reality of the Gulf War; that what “really” happened was dictated by CNN.[2]

But it’s not like those games give credit to all contributors equally.

[1] Or his ideas

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c

You might have pressed in the command, but the actual commit action was done by `git am`, hence why “Git Am” is listed as the committer.

Now let me tediously explain how commit hashes work even though you already alluded to it in a previous comment.

That too I guess.

> It makes sense for a lot of situations purely out of practicality. If a good portion of your customers use tools that break spec, your choices are to accept the brokenness or lose the customer.

Practical? So the adage is just “be liberal because you have to out of practical necessity”? Are you sure that’s the history behind it?

Apparently multiple authors is invalid.[1]

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65445147/how-can-it-be-t...

Yeah that “law” makes absolutely zero sense to me. It’s like “be nice” but in a self-sacrificial way which then indirectly sacrifices other people in the long run.

I know that Junio C Hamano applies all patches himself to git.git and thus is the committer on all commits.[1] That is how Git works when picking out patches from a mailbox.

The are all committed by people, not some middle man program.

Just like I can click the big merge button myself and then it is committed by... oh by mr noreply?

Try to find some committer or author in the git.git project that has a name like “Verified By Yahoo! <jibber jabber hash nonense>”? Good luck. (Almost like that kind of forge silliness was never accepted into any of their workflows... yet they are somehow very comparable, in your mind.)

This is like trying to explain to some Outlook representative that no one cares if they “verify” emails that go through them with some proprietary DKIM headers that only they know and care about.[2] “Well actually, if you understood how email headers work then you would see that it is not at all unlike......”

> Also, don’t use the web UI to commit if you want to sign with your key, simple.

Thank you for the tip.

[1] With the few pull request by way of email exceptions

[2] Made up but not implausible example

> The web-flow signing system is for users’ convenience in places where it’s not feasible to sign the commit with their own private key:

Who signs all their commits? Joey Hess maybe? There are certainly others. But I’ve never seen anyone make a case for this. In fact only negative cases since it just encourages you to automate your signing process, which many are not comfortable with.[1]

I’m not important enough to sign anything.

On Bitbucket we push the big merge button and out comes a commit with the correct person attributed to it.[2] Even Atlassian manages to do this the correct way.

> For the latter, you are free to send your own private key to your codespace so you can sign your own commits but

Yeah GPG/SSH sign commits... who cares. Most people don’t.

> Defaults matter and signed commits are important.

I don’t care about your opinion.

I wouldn’t mind if this was an option that I could opt out of. (I’m wondering out loud, not asking you or anyone else.) I just haven’t heard of it yet.

I’m a Git user after all so I’m used to changing bad defaults.

> As a sibling notes, this use case and similar ones is the reason the committer field exists as distinct from the author field.

Quite a leap to go from attributing emailed-around patches to the correct author while also maintaining the committer (like the maintainer) to what looks equivalent to Norton Antivirus junk output stuffed 40 lines into someone’s email signature.

> I think a $10K bounty for this bug speaks to how seriously they stand behind the fact that they will only sign and mark as verified commits whose author field matches an authenticated user.

“I think the price they put on this SPOOFING vulnerability speaks to how serious they are about verified commits”, they said without irony.

“Sent from my GitHub”, ah they all felt at-ease immediately... wait the same platform that had a spoofing vulnerability?

[1] Well, allegedly. I have never signed anything so I don’t know.

[2] They committed it too. Or wait. Was that the merge button?

I tried to do some more research on this. Unfortunately the search combination

> rewrite commit github verified

is so insanely SEO-poisoned by (1) StackOverflow questions about how to rewrite commits and (2) GitHub’s docs about regular (built-in Git commit verification) commit verification.

But I thought about it some more. And I guess them hijacking the committer on pull request merges is not that insanely bothersome. It’s their platform after all.

Just yet another reason to not interact with forges in a way that affects Git itself.

But another thing I’ve noticed is that sometimes my committer becomes the stupid initial (legacy) email I used to sign up there. Why in the hell? My current email is already registered there. But I tested this now and at least I got the option to merge as one of my addresses. So I guess it was fixed?

> It's common practice to have the committer not match the author

When the committer and author are different people. And apparently when GitHub tries to insert itself as a pseudo-person.

I expected that my own actions would be tied to my own identity on GitHub. Not for them to shoehorn GitHub Verified™ into commit objects that I create through clickity-clacking around their UI. But it is after all their UI and they can poison commits however they like since they create it (i.e. I didn’t create it and send it to them; then I would have noticed if they tried to rewrite it). So shame on me.

> especially in environments where only patches/diffs are sent

Clearly doesn’t apply here.

> I can't imagine the git project having any issue with that, given that the author field stays retained (ignoring this bug ofc.).

Given that they don’t use GitHub for anything directly related to Git (PRs and such) and that they have their own way of indicating code provenance: No, I guess they have no reason to care. (Other than in spirit.)

But it matters in general (in spirit) that if I pick up some patch by Jack Cooper and apply it then the committer is me. Not outlook.com. Or whatever program did it for me.

The commit object has a few metadata fields. I’ve never seen anyone say, “Oh yeah sure, just use that field for whatever it’s not like it matters anyway”.

> I’m not mocking it. I’m just applying the argument I see many people on HN make in discussions about rust to this case, where I suspect many will lean much more on the side of using regexes to reimplement parsers.

Hmm. Okay.

The part that bewilders me is that Rust showed up. Which would have made sense if someone was complaining about C++ or something, or maybe unsafe memory management. But regexes?

> Either way, I didn’t want to have a discussion about rust.

Which is why you brought it up unprompted... I give up.

How did we get from criticizing regexes to mocking “rewrite in rust” in the span of three comments?

I don’t like how GitHub changes my committer to them in the name of being Verified. I don’t care about it being Verified by GitHub (yes, even if it had always worked and not allowed spoofing).

It’s weird that GitHub has such a long history of cooperation with the Git project and yet just rewriting the committer is considered okay to them.

This sounds great if you’re stuck inside the C-derivative mindset block. I.e. the best you can do.

> Rust's addition of operator overloading is also a perplexingly bad decision.

Yes. The poor man’s custom operators.

People have been talking about it since post-WWII.

> A major function of journalism is to verify news before publishing,

Says the News.

That’s probably something that Postmodern philosophers have tried to answer but for more boring Information Overload Eras (telegraph; newspapers; mass media; the Web).

My favorites (will be topped in a month tops):

- President Biden teaches you how to get a goth girlfriend

- The three last players^W presidents have a Metal Gear Solid let’s play (Trump is surprisingly level-headed so far)

> "They" being engineers, eh?

If you’re a volunteer Roman legionnaire don’t be surprised when you are ordered to march on Gaul.

Researchers often like to use allusions in titles. Search Google Scholar for “There and back again”.

> For those who want to add Rust to the core of FreeBSD my primary question: is it really necessary? Or is it just because a bunch of Rustaceans want to?

Bfha... the link is a thread by the FreeBSD devs. Stop it with this language evangelist strawman.

The Go/Rust rivalry is just a peanut gallery meme. It’s never been a real thing IMO.

The language features.

Silence is equivalent to a “no” (posix comp.). That’s documentation enough.

I had a pause when saw that the TLD is `si`. But then I found out that it’s just Slovenia.

I want more innovation in the password requirement genre:

Your password must be valid SQL, Java, Go, or C++ string. Or a haiku about grocery shopping. This way it won’t look like a password in case we leak it.

The only swag I am comfortable with wearing in public are things that look like it might just be a [sweater] with a cool image on it. No way I’m walking around with “Castiron ᴀʟʟ ʏᴏᴜʀ ɪʀᴏɴ ɴᴇᴇᴅs sɪɴᴄᴇ 1887” on my torso.

I need to practice my sardonic replies.

I don’t know. A case of either Electricians or Bureaucrats Are Saying.

You can’t even leave your phone brush/phone to charge unattended, apparently.