On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:58:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny <email@example.com> wrote:
> > What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
> > have to be signed once again?
> The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either
> good or bad based on your perspective).
> So, if 14 devs spend 3 years and 2000 commits working on something in
> a branch, and I commit it to master using a rebase, then all you'll
> see in the master history is that rich0 committed 20k lines of code to
> master on May 31st, and that would be signed by me.
You don't commit to master with a rebase,; it is always a merge. The
type of merge is what controls what you see in the logs.
If you rebase your branch on master, merge to master then run "git pull
--rebase" then push, you will get a fast forward merge, which shows the
If you don't include the rebasing, you get another type of merge which
just shows up in the logs as one commit afaik.