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 1SbGaQ-0003Mv-18 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:35:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F6B8E08B1; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 19:35:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.180]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6143BE08DC for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 19:34:50 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :IW0NeWCpcPchHrcnS4ebzBgQnKHTmUiSF2JlOcyz+57jTVMtVX7471ELeN8= X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from pinacolada.localnet (95-130-166-116.hsi.glasfaser-ostbayern.de [95.130.166.116]) by smtp.strato.de (joses mo56) (RZmta 29.10 AUTH) with ESMTPA id 505671o53HbQP0 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:34:49 +0200 (CEST) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Git braindump: 1 of N: merging & git signing Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:35:43 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.3.1-gentoo; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <201206031239.21744.dilfridge@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: 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; boundary="nextPart1983081.lqNpbvoxZl"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201206032135.49757.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: f5b5955d-c428-4086-a92f-7a2501d1375e X-Archives-Hash: 50b12f7f2e8b081423a4775e0aa8e60e --nextPart1983081.lqNpbvoxZl Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2012, 18:01:04 schrieb Dirkjan Ochtman: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Andreas K. Huettel >=20 > wrote: > > Sounds reasonable given the current state of git. Let's just be clear > > about the following consequence (I hope I understand this correctly): > >=20 > > * User makes signed improvements in gentoo-x86 clone > > * Developer pulls from user and >merges< > > * Developer's history contains commits by user, which cannot be pushed = to > > gentoo-x86 > >=20 > > Which means in the end "all merges are explicitly allowed, as long as > > they only contain developer commits; commits pulled from users must be > > rebased". >=20 > I don't think so. IMO pushing commits by a user should be a fine, as > long as they're merged in a non-fast-forward, signed merge commit. Can probably be done, but this must be finetuned in whatever script enforce= s=20 the rule upon push to the developer.=20 However, then the "committer" of the contributed commits before the merge i= s=20 then the user, I guess? (The rule meaning as suggested by Robin > - if you include a commit from a user: > author :=3D non-@gentoo > committer :=3D @gentoo > signer :=3D $committer=20 ) Cheers,=20 Andreas =2D-=20 Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer=20 dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ --nextPart1983081.lqNpbvoxZl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk/LvJUACgkQ3ao2Zwy3NWpVjQCeJpYJEIVktZXCqy9rOcPryQUS b5sAn0fof4UTxg3rUKR/JGYuWKP3vVBf =p19G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1983081.lqNpbvoxZl--