On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Tobin C. Harding [off-list ref] wrote:

Linus do you care what protocol? I'm patching Documentation and since
the point is creating pull requests for you 'some people' don't matter.

I actually tend to prefer the regular git:// protocol and signed tags.

It's true that https should have the proper certificate and perhaps
help with DNS spoofing, but I'm not convinced that git won't just
accept self-signed random certs, and I basically don't think we should
trust that.

In contrast, using ssh I would actually trust, but it's not convenient
and involves people sending things that aren't necessarily publicly
available.

So instead, I prefer just using git:// and not trying to fool people
into thinking the protocol is secure - the security should come from
the signed tag.

And then people can do this:

  [url "ssh://git at gitolite.kernel.org"]
      insteadOf = https://git.kernel.org
      insteadOf = http://git.kernel.org
      insteadOf = git://git.kernel.org

which makes git.kernel.org addresses use ssh, and avoid the whole
possible DNS spoofing problem.

That said, I actually would prefer even kernel.org repositories to
just send pull requests with signed tags, despite the protocol itself
being secure for that (and only that).

Other hosts I will simply not trust without it because I can't do the above.

Side note: there's an unrelated advantage of using "git://" over
"https://". It means that people who do automation see that it's a git
repo. It also means, for example, that people that highlight https://
URL's and perhaps use them for spam marking hopefully don't do that
with git:// format.

              Linus