1 |
On 10/19/2016 01:00 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
2 |
> One of the downsides both the git-am and cherry-pick workflows are that |
3 |
> they invalidate or otherwise omit commit signatures. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> git-merge on the other hand does preserve the signature as the original |
6 |
> commit is intact, and the merge commit is where the signature of the |
7 |
> gentoo developer is introduced. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I agree clean history is valuable, but verifiable attribution may in |
10 |
> fact be more important. |
11 |
> |
12 |
Yes, I don't like this aspect of any workflow that breaks history but I |
13 |
personally feel that for the sake of both 'cleanliness' and ease of use |
14 |
that the git am (or cherry-pick) workflow is best. I could possibly see |
15 |
the possibility of tampering with the patch could be a problem |
16 |
(attribution as you say) but in the end a developer still committed it. |
17 |
Authored-by and Committed-by being different fields I feel the main one |
18 |
infra needs to worry about is Committed-by. |
19 |
|
20 |
-- |
21 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |