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 1SaBgs-0004wl-QE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 31 May 2012 20:09:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 12BBAE0587; Thu, 31 May 2012 20:09:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54E4E0566 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 20:08:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-253-135-71.adsl.inetia.pl [77.253.135.71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3D4C1B4007; Thu, 31 May 2012 20:08:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:09:59 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org, williamh@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver Message-ID: <20120531220959.0a33f183@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20120531191804.GA24784@linux1> <20120531213303.57529c85@pomiocik.lan> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/kE8ehBvB/=VXQB=8Z=4CRR5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 5514a30b-d007-48f9-9133-812fa98966e9 X-Archives-Hash: 0dc0c8738b0836cdb760d0ef50dd3646 --Sig_/kE8ehBvB/=VXQB=8Z=4CRR5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:43 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > wrote: > > What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them > > have to be signed once again? > > >=20 > The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either > good or bad based on your perspective). >=20 > So, if 14 devs spend 3 years and 2000 commits working on something in > a branch, and I commit it to master using a rebase, then all you'll > see in the master history is that rich0 committed 20k lines of code to > master on May 31st, and that would be signed by me. >=20 > I think that rebasing before merging is a pretty typical workflow > anyway - when you submit a patch to Linus, he doesn't really care that > you spent six months tweaking it - he just is getting a big blob of > code that either works or doesn't. Does all that sub-history really > matter? You could always push the branch to the repository if you > wanted to keep it on the side. That sounds like a pretty poor workflow to me. If I tweak something for 3 years, I'm likely to have a larger set of logically organized commits. I'm not saying it's unlikely I'm going to rebase fixes for obvious mistakes but putting everything onto one blob just makes the changes harder to read and less maintainable. For example, if I first create a basic function and then add additional options to it, I'm likely to keep those as separate commits. If one of the changes was a really bad idea, I'd like to revert the appropriate commit rather than removing all traces of it by hand and mistakenly introducing even worse breakage. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/kE8ehBvB/=VXQB=8Z=4CRR5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAk/H0BgACgkQfXuS5UK5QB2MHgP/eGkU8DR/sEUAW7YCDWBCHBy6 mcRXCuoWcdNEZYTqmImPGy+22sDDpfHX3H8klGG3h+sX0rpoSpUPdUz1d0TquGZC t3Km/F6k4l9ROXU0bGjjXW3asCqAW7EF8KBuzFbKLOHMiclJEm486eGqv+33A9Xv mgBnSDGfgp9Vc1TM8JY= =LPqU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/kE8ehBvB/=VXQB=8Z=4CRR5--