Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Git braindump: 1 of N: merging & git signing
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:10:29
Message-Id: 20120604191000.GA3692@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Git braindump: 1 of N: merging & git signing by Dirkjan Ochtman
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:45:42PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: > > Anything we do has to be automated to be of any real value. ??Ideally > > if something goes wrong it should be as detectable as possible. > > Yeah, but you'd have to part of that at every developer's box. > > Can we just agree that having the tip of the main tree always signed > will be enough for now, and postpone the rest of the discussion until > later?
ToT is always going to be signed. If it *isn't* signed, either the infra machinery is broken and not rejecting commits that it should reject, or someone is trojaning the repo (either via an infra compromise, local compromise, or via man in the middle). One thing people need to keep in mind here is that when you sign the commit, you're signing off on the history implicitly. Directly addressing freeman's comment about "people sign the manifest but don't look at what they're signing", when it comes to git signage, bluntly, people doing that shouldn't have access- if they can't be arsed to validate what they're signing, then trusting them w/ the tree is probably questionable. Harsh, but frankly, sane people don't sign enforcable contracts w/out verifying what they're signing (note the 'enforcable' bit, stated to head off the EULA rathole discussion); this isn't any different frankly. ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Git braindump: 1 of N: merging & git signing Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>