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 19:11:39
Message-Id: 76e36a8d339bb67761988fe3f086b17c@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by "Michał Górny"
Or may be something like this according to old disscussion

http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/GPG-signing-for-git-commit-td2582986.html

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:19:31 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> 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, 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