Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: "Piotr Jaroszyński" <peper@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:07:55
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by Alexey Shvetsov
On 23 August 2011 17:22, Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy@g.o> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:57:24 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> >> On 08/23/2011 07:02 AM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: >>> >>> Ok. What is problems with thin Manifests (some kind of this already >>> implented in funtoo) >> >> This is really easy to do. Like the manifest1 -> manifest2 migration, >> we'll need some kind of repository marker which indicates the manifest >> format. For example, we could use an entry in metadata/layout.conf for >> this purpose (as I've already suggested in bug #333691). >> >>> and commit signing (this means gpg signing or something else?). >> >> I guess the existing manifest signing technique is likely to trigger >> merge conflicts in the manifests. I suppose we could use another marker, >> similar to the thin manifest marker, to indicate that the existing >> manifest signing technique should not be used in the git tree. > > Yep signing git commits with gpg should avoid conflicts. May we can use > something like this [1] > [1] >
After a quick look, it doesn't seem to add any security whatsoever - it signs only the commit message. -- Pozdrowienia Piotr Jaroszyński