Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:05:42
Message-Id: 24c93757267031f12741b2347f38e93e@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by Zac Medico
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 -- Best Regards, Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Russia Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics Gentoo Team Ru Gentoo Linux Dev mailto:alexxyum@×××××.com mailto:alexxy@g.o mailto:alexxy@×××××××××××××.ru

Replies