| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 2 |
<dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 2 June 2012 03:12, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Yes. Which basically means, you *cannot* have both |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> a) rebase only merges |
| 7 |
>> and |
| 8 |
>> b) every commit must be signed |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> as policies. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I would say that this is a very strong argument in favour of allowing merge |
| 14 |
> commits. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
One advantage of merge commits with signatures is that the history |
| 17 |
really does reflect who signed what. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Proxy maintainer signs a bunch of ebuilds. I merge them in. The |
| 20 |
commits show that the proxy maintainer signed a bunch of work done |
| 21 |
against an old tree, and I signed a bunch of merge diffs that |
| 22 |
basically synced them up to the new tree. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
However, this is missing another issue. What is the value of |
| 25 |
preserving all those original signatures in the first place? I'd |
| 26 |
think that they'd mainly be used as some kind of web-of-trust. Well, |
| 27 |
would such a web-of-trust include proxy maintainers in the first |
| 28 |
place? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If you want the tree to be traceable to Gentoo devs, then rewriting |
| 31 |
the signatures is probably a good thing. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
However, Kent did point out the rebase function doesn't actually apply |
| 34 |
new signatures to the "new old" commits anyway, so you'd end up with |
| 35 |
unsigned commits in the history. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
git-rebase is just a shell script, that ultimately just calls |
| 38 |
git-commit as far as I can see, which means that implementing |
| 39 |
re-signing is just a matter of adding the appropriate parameters, or |
| 40 |
use default configuration (assuming it doesn't already do this). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Rich |
Archives