▲ | marginalia_nu 4 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Because the developers have just that on their local machine...? Git is a distributed vcs after all. Every checkout is its own complete git "hub". | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | perihelions 4 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Because GitHub can serve different bytes to different people. You log in as one of the project's devs, you get your own consistent, correct view of your project; some other people get malware instead. How do you reconcile the full picture? No one distrusts GitHub. There's no public log which git tools generically check against to see if GitHub is attempting something evil, the way they do with certificate transparency. GitHub is the public log. Git may be designed as a distributed VCS; and it'd be a different situation if it were used that way in practice. For many projects, GitHub has a full MITM. They could even—forget about the checksums—bifurcate the views in between devs—accept commits from one dev, send over those commits with translated Merkle trees to another dev who has a corrupted history, and they'd never figure it out. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|