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