| 1 |
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:59:13 Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:31:03PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:18:17 Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 09/29/2011 12:09 PM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On 29/09/11 16:11, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > >> Otherwise some funny person will use a 4-bit key that expires |
| 7 |
> > > >> tomorrow just to point out the missing details ... |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > That is a simple case of "don't be a jackass". |
| 10 |
> > > > I do not feel that it is a productive use of my time to outlegislate |
| 11 |
> > > > being a jackass in Gentoo. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > If I comment on this, I will be bikeshedding ... j/k. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > I'd be happy just to see a policy in place saying "we reject unsigned |
| 16 |
> > > manifests". I mention the Council because that's one avenue for gentoo |
| 17 |
> > > wide policy. The other is a GLEP, but I don't think that's necessary |
| 18 |
> > > here, or at least not yet. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > the commit hook is waiting on git: |
| 21 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/377233 |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > then you won't need a policy because you can't commit any other way :p |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> We don't need to wait for git which is forever on the horizon to enforce |
| 26 |
> it. There are other solutions to use. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
there is no technical solution with CVS. commits are done on a per-file |
| 29 |
basis, so you can't reject an unsigned Manifest since the other files have |
| 30 |
already been committed. |
| 31 |
-mike |
Archives