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: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:53:52 -0400
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
<dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
>> On 2 June 2012 03:12, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
>> Yes. Which basically means, you *cannot* have both
>>
>> a) rebase only merges
>> and
>> b) every commit must be signed
>>
>> as policies.
>>
>
> I would say that this is a very strong argument in favour of allowing merge
> commits.

One advantage of merge commits with signatures is that the history
really does reflect who signed what.

Proxy maintainer signs a bunch of ebuilds.  I merge them in.  The
commits show that the proxy maintainer signed a bunch of work done
against an old tree, and I signed a bunch of merge diffs that
basically synced them up to the new tree.

However, this is missing another issue.  What is the value of
preserving all those original signatures in the first place?  I'd
think that they'd mainly be used as some kind of web-of-trust.  Well,
would such a web-of-trust include proxy maintainers in the first
place?

If you want the tree to be traceable to Gentoo devs, then rewriting
the signatures is probably a good thing.

However, Kent did point out the rebase function doesn't actually apply
new signatures to the "new old" commits anyway, so you'd end up with
unsigned commits in the history.

git-rebase is just a shell script, that ultimately just calls
git-commit as far as I can see, which means that implementing
re-signing is just a matter of adding the appropriate parameters, or
use default configuration (assuming it doesn't already do this).

Rich


Replies:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: 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
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
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
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: 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.