| 1 |
On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to preserve |
| 3 |
> commit signatures when e.g. merging someone else's work. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Correct, but if the person applying the commits to tree is in fact |
| 7 |
reviewing them as they go, then the fact they re-sign it with their |
| 8 |
own signature |
| 9 |
( and changing the commits "Committed by" in the process ) pretty much |
| 10 |
means the chain of custody is preserved. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That is, the fact the original signature is lost is immaterial, |
| 13 |
because we only need it as a signature that /somebody/ actually is |
| 14 |
responsible for the commit, and the person performing the rebase takes |
| 15 |
the essential responsibility in the process. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The original author metadata is however, not lost in this process, |
| 18 |
only commit metadata changes. ( And the signature is commit metadata, |
| 19 |
not author metadata ) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Kent |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives