<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Kargo on Pim Widdershoven</title><link>https://www.pimwiddershoven.nl/tags/kargo/</link><description>Recent content in Kargo on Pim Widdershoven</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.pimwiddershoven.nl/tags/kargo/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>GitOps as an audit trail: why a Git log beats a ticket system</title><link>https://www.pimwiddershoven.nl/entry/gitops-as-an-audit-trail/</link><pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.pimwiddershoven.nl/entry/gitops-as-an-audit-trail/</guid><description>Most teams treat audit evidence as paperwork they assemble after the fact. With GitOps the evidence is a side effect of how you already deploy. This post explains GitOps in plain terms, why a signed and reviewed change history is stronger proof than a ticket, and how to handle the two cases that still break it: emergency changes and drift.</description></item></channel></rss>