| 1 |
Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2012, 18:01:04 schrieb Dirkjan Ochtman: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Sounds reasonable given the current state of git. Let's just be clear |
| 6 |
> > about the following consequence (I hope I understand this correctly): |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > * User makes signed improvements in gentoo-x86 clone |
| 9 |
> > * Developer pulls from user and >merges< |
| 10 |
> > * Developer's history contains commits by user, which cannot be pushed to |
| 11 |
> > gentoo-x86 |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Which means in the end "all merges are explicitly allowed, as long as |
| 14 |
> > they only contain developer commits; commits pulled from users must be |
| 15 |
> > rebased". |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I don't think so. IMO pushing commits by a user should be a fine, as |
| 18 |
> long as they're merged in a non-fast-forward, signed merge commit. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Can probably be done, but this must be finetuned in whatever script enforces |
| 21 |
the rule upon push to the developer. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
However, then the "committer" of the contributed commits before the merge is |
| 24 |
then the user, I guess? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
(The rule meaning as suggested by Robin |
| 27 |
> - if you include a commit from a user: |
| 28 |
> author := non-@gentoo |
| 29 |
> committer := @gentoo |
| 30 |
> signer := $committer |
| 31 |
) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Cheers, |
| 34 |
Andreas |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 39 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 40 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 41 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives