Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Cc: alexxy@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:06:55
Message-Id: 20110823181931.7b5c42d1@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by Alexey Shvetsov
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:22:06 +0400
Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy@g.o> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:57:24 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 08/23/2011 07:02 AM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: > >> Ok. What is problems with thin Manifests (some kind of this already > >> implented in funtoo) > > > > This is really easy to do. Like the manifest1 -> manifest2 > > migration, we'll need some kind of repository marker which > > indicates the manifest > > format. For example, we could use an entry in metadata/layout.conf > > for > > this purpose (as I've already suggested in bug #333691). > > > >> and commit signing (this means gpg signing or something else?). > > > > I guess the existing manifest signing technique is likely to trigger > > merge conflicts in the manifests. I suppose we could use another > > marker, > > similar to the thin manifest marker, to indicate that the existing > > manifest signing technique should not be used in the git tree. > > Yep signing git commits with gpg should avoid conflicts. May we can > use something like this [1] > [1] > http://weierophinney.net/matthew/archives/236-GPG-signing-Git-Commits.html
Er, no. Signing commits != signing commit message text. -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies