[nusl]

If you’re equating signing a commit to traditional code approval you fundamentally misunderstand the point of signing a commit or what a signature is in cryptography. You “approve” the code by authoring the commit but the signature is a verifiable stamp to say it was you, not the approval itself.

In that case you probably need training or self-education. If your company tells you to sign commits but doesn’t tell you why, that’s on them. If you sign commits and don’t take the time to understand why, that’s on you.

Also, if you think quality comes from approval or signing a commit you’re also not understanding code quality because there is a huge amount of terrible approved code out there.

Just because someone doesn’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s bad or shouldn’t happen. It means that there’s possibly a gap that’s causing the misunderstanding that should be addressed, or the wording changed to be less ambiguous.