| 1 |
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:02:19 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > > OK, if manifests are that important, why not generate full manifest |
| 3 |
> > > > during repoman commit? If we do not tamper with $Id$, the only file |
| 4 |
> > > > outside of this manifest will be ChangeLog generated during rsync |
| 5 |
> > > > propagation. Then we have following options: |
| 6 |
> > > > - do not sing ChangeLog: even if it will be tampered, little harm |
| 7 |
> > > > can be done, since it doesn't affect live system or build process; |
| 8 |
> > > > - sign ChangeLog with releng key; |
| 9 |
> > > > - sign developer-signed manifest + ChangeLog with releng key. Thus |
| 10 |
> > > > we'll have double signature for most important files. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > How about we switch back to CVS if we're going to kill git anyway? It'd |
| 13 |
> > > at least save our time wasted by these pointless discussions. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I don't understand your point. Please explain. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > I see nobody here talking about killing git. I see people concerned |
| 18 |
> > that git is not cryptographically secure enough, thus looking for |
| 19 |
> > gpg-signed manifests or other solutions. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I see you talking about introducing whole new bucket of merge |
| 22 |
> conflicts. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Where? The only case where such conflict may occur is when several |
| 25 |
developers are working on the same package at the same time. This |
| 26 |
is quite rare occasion. And even with current thin-manifest |
| 27 |
workflow there may be conflict if they touch the same files. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives