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: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:39:39 +0200
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 03:25:43 +1200
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@...> wrote:

> On 2 June 2012 03:12, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
> >> "git cat-file -p $sha" is as close as you can get to commit objects
> >> without needing to write your own decompressing wrapper.  But it
> >> gives the same results.
> >
> > Now, does the "signed data" also contain the parent sha?
> >
> > If yes, our discussion about rebasing is moot, because a rebase
> > will in every case destroy previous signatures.
> >
> 
> Yes. Which basically means, you *cannot* have both
> 
> a) rebase only merges
> and
> b) every commit must be signed
> 
> as policies.
> 
> At very best, I think either
> a) a future git might support signed rebases ( ie: replacing existing
> signatures with new signatures in the name of the person performing
> the rebase )
> or
> b) somebody could write a wrapper that provides signed-rebase support
> until git get around to implementing it natively.
> 
> and even then, you're going to lose original signing info ( Though,
> thats no worse than the signer of the manifest file changing every
> sign )

Yes, it's no worse so we're practically considering implementing a very
complex mechanism for no real benefit.

As I see it, as good would be only requiring some kind of 'top-level'
commits to be signed. For example, if one does merge a branch
to the tree, a signed merge commit should already be good enough for
us. Not sure if git is able to do that, however...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
References:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
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
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: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Previous by date:
Re: Re: 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.