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: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:49:36 -0400
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.

I'm trying to glean what I can from the little info out there about
how the new commit signatures work, but I don't think that you can use
signatures to convey authorship if later authors are going to rebase
the branch.  The situation is not unlike what we have now with
manifests.

As far as I can tell if you want to do work outside of master, and
then get those commits into master but preserve all the past
signatures in the history of master, then you'd need to do a merge
commit, so that all the deltas to do the merge are in a separate
commit which is then signed by the person doing the merge.

Rich


Replies:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
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
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.