Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Git braindump: 1 of N: merging & git signing
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:35:38
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Git braindump: 1 of N: merging & git signing by Dirkjan Ochtman
Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2012, 18:01:04 schrieb Dirkjan Ochtman:
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Andreas K. Huettel > > <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: > > Sounds reasonable given the current state of git. Let's just be clear > > about the following consequence (I hope I understand this correctly): > > > > * User makes signed improvements in gentoo-x86 clone > > * Developer pulls from user and >merges< > > * Developer's history contains commits by user, which cannot be pushed to > > gentoo-x86 > > > > Which means in the end "all merges are explicitly allowed, as long as > > they only contain developer commits; commits pulled from users must be > > rebased". > > I don't think so. IMO pushing commits by a user should be a fine, as > long as they're merged in a non-fast-forward, signed merge commit.
Can probably be done, but this must be finetuned in whatever script enforces the rule upon push to the developer. However, then the "committer" of the contributed commits before the merge is then the user, I guess? (The rule meaning as suggested by Robin
> - if you include a commit from a user: > author := non-@gentoo > committer := @gentoo > signer := $committer
) Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfridge@g.o


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


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