Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:26:55
Message-Id: CAATnKFD7VE6GQ2bAtzTqfTgXaXVtDgfhDLexRP1jbFrgJ0yV7w@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by "Andreas K. Huettel"
On 2 June 2012 03:12, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
>> "git cat-file -p $sha" is as close as you can get to commit objects >> without needing to write your own decompressing wrapper.  But it gives >> the same results. > > Now, does the "signed data" also contain the parent sha? > > If yes, our discussion about rebasing is moot, because a rebase will in every > case destroy previous signatures. >
Yes. Which basically means, you *cannot* have both a) rebase only merges and b) every commit must be signed as policies. At very best, I think either a) a future git might support signed rebases ( ie: replacing existing signatures with new signatures in the name of the person performing the rebase ) or b) somebody could write a wrapper that provides signed-rebase support until git get around to implementing it natively. and even then, you're going to lose original signing info ( Though, thats no worse than the signer of the manifest file changing every sign ) -- 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