| 1 |
On 2 June 2012 03:12, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>> "git cat-file -p $sha" is as close as you can get to commit objects |
| 3 |
>> without needing to write your own decompressing wrapper. But it gives |
| 4 |
>> the same results. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Now, does the "signed data" also contain the parent sha? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If yes, our discussion about rebasing is moot, because a rebase will in every |
| 9 |
> case destroy previous signatures. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Yes. Which basically means, you *cannot* have both |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
a) rebase only merges |
| 15 |
and |
| 16 |
b) every commit must be signed |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
as policies. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
At very best, I think either |
| 21 |
a) a future git might support signed rebases ( ie: replacing existing |
| 22 |
signatures with new signatures in the name of the person performing |
| 23 |
the rebase ) |
| 24 |
or |
| 25 |
b) somebody could write a wrapper that provides signed-rebase support |
| 26 |
until git get around to implementing it natively. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
and even then, you're going to lose original signing info ( Though, |
| 29 |
thats no worse than the signer of the manifest file changing every |
| 30 |
sign ) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Kent |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 37 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz |
Archives