1 |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them |
3 |
> have to be signed once again? |
4 |
> |
5 |
|
6 |
The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either |
7 |
good or bad based on your perspective). |
8 |
|
9 |
So, if 14 devs spend 3 years and 2000 commits working on something in |
10 |
a branch, and I commit it to master using a rebase, then all you'll |
11 |
see in the master history is that rich0 committed 20k lines of code to |
12 |
master on May 31st, and that would be signed by me. |
13 |
|
14 |
I think that rebasing before merging is a pretty typical workflow |
15 |
anyway - when you submit a patch to Linus, he doesn't really care that |
16 |
you spent six months tweaking it - he just is getting a big blob of |
17 |
code that either works or doesn't. Does all that sub-history really |
18 |
matter? You could always push the branch to the repository if you |
19 |
wanted to keep it on the side. |
20 |
|
21 |
Rich |