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