1 |
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:22:06 +0400 |
2 |
Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:57:24 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
5 |
> > On 08/23/2011 07:02 AM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: |
6 |
> >> Ok. What is problems with thin Manifests (some kind of this already |
7 |
> >> implented in funtoo) |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > This is really easy to do. Like the manifest1 -> manifest2 |
10 |
> > migration, we'll need some kind of repository marker which |
11 |
> > indicates the manifest |
12 |
> > format. For example, we could use an entry in metadata/layout.conf |
13 |
> > for |
14 |
> > this purpose (as I've already suggested in bug #333691). |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> >> and commit signing (this means gpg signing or something else?). |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > I guess the existing manifest signing technique is likely to trigger |
19 |
> > merge conflicts in the manifests. I suppose we could use another |
20 |
> > marker, |
21 |
> > similar to the thin manifest marker, to indicate that the existing |
22 |
> > manifest signing technique should not be used in the git tree. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Yep signing git commits with gpg should avoid conflicts. May we can |
25 |
> use something like this [1] |
26 |
> [1] |
27 |
> http://weierophinney.net/matthew/archives/236-GPG-signing-Git-Commits.html |
28 |
|
29 |
Er, no. Signing commits != signing commit message text. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Best regards, |
33 |
Michał Górny |