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