| 1 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 03:25:43 +1200 |
| 2 |
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 2 June 2012 03:12, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> "git cat-file -p $sha" is as close as you can get to commit objects |
| 6 |
> >> without needing to write your own decompressing wrapper. But it |
| 7 |
> >> gives the same results. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Now, does the "signed data" also contain the parent sha? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > If yes, our discussion about rebasing is moot, because a rebase |
| 12 |
> > will in every case destroy previous signatures. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yes. Which basically means, you *cannot* have both |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> a) rebase only merges |
| 18 |
> and |
| 19 |
> b) every commit must be signed |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> as policies. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> At very best, I think either |
| 24 |
> a) a future git might support signed rebases ( ie: replacing existing |
| 25 |
> signatures with new signatures in the name of the person performing |
| 26 |
> the rebase ) |
| 27 |
> or |
| 28 |
> b) somebody could write a wrapper that provides signed-rebase support |
| 29 |
> until git get around to implementing it natively. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> and even then, you're going to lose original signing info ( Though, |
| 32 |
> thats no worse than the signer of the manifest file changing every |
| 33 |
> sign ) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Yes, it's no worse so we're practically considering implementing a very |
| 36 |
complex mechanism for no real benefit. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
As I see it, as good would be only requiring some kind of 'top-level' |
| 39 |
commits to be signed. For example, if one does merge a branch |
| 40 |
to the tree, a signed merge commit should already be good enough for |
| 41 |
us. Not sure if git is able to do that, however... |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Best regards, |
| 45 |
Michał Górny |
Archives