[Smaug123]

Yeah, "who built this" information belongs in a signing certificate that accompanies the build artefact, not in the artefact itself. The Git hash can certainly appear in the binary (it's a reproducible part of the build input), and the date can instead be e.g. the commit date, which is probably more relevant to a user anyway.

[bloak]

Much as I like Git, I'm not sure I like the idea of the artefacts depending on the git commit and therefore on the entire git history. I rather feel the artefacts should only depend on the actual source and not on a particular version control system used for storing the source.

[zbentley]

You're welcome to include full sources, or not-tied-to-git directions to acquire them, with your release binaries.

Regardless, whether or not you do that is a discussion of distribution format, not binary reproducibility. Your distribution can contain as much (or as little) additional material as you like along with your release binaries.

[bloak]

Absolutely. I'm just stating my personal preference, that's all.