Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@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 20:09:06
Message-Id: 201108231515.30542.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by "Michał Górny"
On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:19:31 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:22:06 +0400 Alexey Shvetsov 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.htm > > l > > Er, no. Signing commits != signing commit message text.
and people shouldnt confuse this guy's post with signed annotated tags -mike

Attachments

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