Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:18:16
Message-Id: m31ulyzi0b.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by William Hubbs
>>>>> "WH" == William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> writes:
WH> My big complaint about merge commits is if you do a git show <hash> on WH> a merge commit, you get nothing, With current git and proper merge logs you get useful info. The headers contain the hashes, so you can get the list of commits pulled by that merge. The signed tag log is show. And merge conflicts also are shown. Based on the hashes in the Merge: header, you can use git log to see the individual commits or git diff to see the whole picture at once. Linus’ current tip is a good example: cd .../linux git show 1193755ac632 So, Gentoo shouldn't prohibit merges. Instead, it should demand that all merges be of signed tags. The plan includes signed commits anyway, so signed tags for pulls will be fully supported by any version of git which might be used. -JimC -- James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6