From: | Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
Subject: | Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver | ||
Date: | Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:14:40 | ||
Message-Id: | CAKmKYaAwzmbnfi7h1AWhbDVikF1QSAQG3LF5uqP86W96HWO2gw@mail.gmail.com | ||
In Reply to: | Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Rich Freeman |
1 | On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 | > If you want the tree to be traceable to Gentoo devs, then rewriting |
3 | > the signatures is probably a good thing. |
4 | |
5 | I'd say that signing the merge commit is good enough. It says the |
6 | Gentoo dev who merged it has reviewed the changes and can be held |
7 | responsible for them. One could even say that he mediates a |
8 | web-of-trust to the more casual contributor who signed the original |
9 | csets. |
10 | |
11 | Cheers, |
12 | |
13 | Dirkjan |