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: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:12:57 +0200
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> If you want the tree to be traceable to Gentoo devs, then rewriting
> the signatures is probably a good thing.

I'd say that signing the merge commit is good enough. It says the
Gentoo dev who merged it has reviewed the changes and can be held
responsible for them. One could even say that he mediates a
web-of-trust to the more casual contributor who signed the original
csets.

Cheers,

Dirkjan


References:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Andreas K. Huettel
Re: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
Re: Re: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Andreas K. Huettel
Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by thread:
Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver


Updated Jun 23, 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.