Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:55:18 +1200
On 1 June 2012 14:49, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@...> wrote:
>> Just I haven't worked out what happens when the SHA1 of the 'parent'
>> header changes, which *will* change if the rebase is anything other
>> than a fast-forward.
>>
>> If that SHA1 changes, the gpg signature will surely fail?
>
> Rebasing doesn't modify past commits - it creates new ones and the
> past ones are no longer in the history of the current head.  So, it
> doesn't break the old signatures so much as discard them.  You would
> need to create new signatures in their place, presumably from whoever
> performed the rebase.


Hmm, thats annoying. Almost makes me wish it was the trees that were
signed, not the commits.

Although, I probably could brew up a prototype resigning tool ( based
on Git::PurePerl ,... when they accept and publish my changes ) , just
would be problematic because simply the act of signing a past commit
means the SHA1 of the commit itself is different, so all successive
commits after a re-signed commit will change and also need to be
rebased and re-signed.

-- 
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:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
References:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- William Hubbs
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Michał Górny
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Previous by date:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by date:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.