From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2unM-0006Us-PL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:22:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 667B11C147; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:22:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D571C144 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:21:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pzk27 with SMTP id 27so104724pzk.40 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:21:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=AM8eXQ4sBuCbPfoIbabVWdGenReVJsK9iTA8K05NcTs=; b=oBQL2YynDvgre0brPSAZoqYVouS49Zo+MI5yCjQrRszlmAcD4GXq2rYkNVzpN2Zpj6 g/0+xJReKyHzVU57wHYOsysEuxRVKVlvWr/E0CAyEO6J+lx5LmJyDJ6vBlFbt5oxy2NY SZh2UiZaUx8SxFn1Up99P0ekYZQsuf+os+HE8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=SqX1HCXZjiejYpmt0h7T+zYJAYzGMMhz2DfNDPi7pw+1qHqjON1zuEmQfgyQj270/q Y1y0tR7bEOHaJdEkN9wR07ls2JRdUbpe/n7dL7L3Wo9XdGlyvJ3NbPyHgpdmm3dftBEj Yx14MXWTIza+fD+UgN2LFAiYyl3EgkFLQacws= Received: by 10.142.195.17 with SMTP id s17mr109998wff.257.1301012514744; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-24-20-36-83.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [24.20.36.83]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s41sm541871wfc.3.2011.03.24.17.21.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:21:50 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:21:24 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rejecting unsigned commits Message-ID: <20110325002124.GA23059@hrair> References: <1301004533.2896.3.camel@TesterTop4> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1301004533.2896.3.camel@TesterTop4> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 4280b25cdfe0aeec79217caba113f90e --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:08:53PM -0400, Olivier Cr=EAte wrote: > On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 17:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > is there any reason we should allow people to commit unsigned > > Manifest's anymore ? generating/posting/enabling a gpg key is > > ridiculously easy and there's really no excuse for a dev to not have > > done this already. >=20 > I didn't know we still allowed that.. I guess the CVS server should just > reject unsigned Manifests.. Reject, and email an alias of folk who will go fix the manifest. Keep=20 in mind since it's a two stage commit for cvs, the checksums are left=20 out of sync if we just flat out reject unsigned manifests and ignore=20 the fallout. ~brian --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk2L4AQACgkQsiLx3HvNzgc5QgCfUWgYAn62AVh/kgW/gz6uaAEB vJAAn1YX5aFa8MJtguvOIp0sUPNLMVRi =Q+oc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd--