| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:08:53PM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 17:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > is there any reason we should allow people to commit unsigned |
| 5 |
>> > Manifest's anymore ? generating/posting/enabling a gpg key is |
| 6 |
>> > ridiculously easy and there's really no excuse for a dev to not have |
| 7 |
>> > done this already. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I didn't know we still allowed that.. I guess the CVS server should just |
| 10 |
>> reject unsigned Manifests.. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Reject, and email an alias of folk who will go fix the manifest. Keep |
| 13 |
> in mind since it's a two stage commit for cvs, the checksums are left |
| 14 |
> out of sync if we just flat out reject unsigned manifests and ignore |
| 15 |
> the fallout. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
the fallout is said dev fixes their setup or they lose commit access |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
i dont expect the rejection to go into effect $now, so people not |
| 20 |
signing have plenty of time to start doing so |
| 21 |
-mike |
Archives