Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:56:23
Message-Id: CAATnKFA814-G3NwaNddmmjnN=5L5tOsk1dw+SHO861STwkfrZQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Rich Freeman
On 1 June 2012 14:49, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: >> Just I haven't worked out what happens when the SHA1 of the 'parent' >> header changes, which *will* change if the rebase is anything other >> than a fast-forward. >> >> If that SHA1 changes, the gpg signature will surely fail? > > Rebasing doesn't modify past commits - it creates new ones and the > past ones are no longer in the history of the current head.  So, it > doesn't break the old signatures so much as discard them.  You would > need to create new signatures in their place, presumably from whoever > performed the rebase.
Hmm, thats annoying. Almost makes me wish it was the trees that were signed, not the commits. Although, I probably could brew up a prototype resigning tool ( based on Git::PurePerl ,... when they accept and publish my changes ) , just would be problematic because simply the act of signing a past commit means the SHA1 of the commit itself is different, so all successive commits after a re-signed commit will change and also need to be rebased and re-signed. -- Kent perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz

Replies