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 1SaUBq-00030i-0e for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:55:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 027EDE064E; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:54:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE4AE0605 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkcjk13 with SMTP id jk13so2293345bkc.40 for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:53:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=xqK914QQ5gV+BCm2LbxpFTUAhg7kppXv3tSVCjLoXNY=; b=csfaT4PupO2Whs/k5HZTkePRioxmVYgOIQOrYsw/y19C6HaQqGGirwI7cMMXuRuvDT bpeoXAKk5PQRL/Ea0aLJQ7YfUMZ+ARUo7/yYeMEXcHb/WD8aPNiOwBJ/KkzQM14zFBIE ahEZI6xu90PMfZ9s4Z8mCri7cPvPx5J/POTrIcZipZTc5FDCFJhFWLwEVLRh0ImzFUai H+wdtFW0NibcIgjUSOUbSgTJs3/2Nu3eZPnlOEj7iX2b3+6ysqGgZCLXfWu77s1Ty9jU 4D9Hlf67tVeXYOqEgCOsBIGkVGON0iTCRTV/3hL3uzSBM9EwVHPyMFxk+X/Z1YBhWft9 da1Q== 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 Received: by 10.204.152.196 with SMTP id h4mr2257544bkw.131.1338566032970; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.149.211 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1636308.cYuZxjJslQ@grenadine> References: <3375796.AWLuLamy3m@grenadine> <1636308.cYuZxjJslQ@grenadine> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:53:52 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eWbq_d-kAPHKXvNWZDv8aDC928g Message-ID: Subject: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: b8062229-97af-4cde-ba1f-3d66e9972a88 X-Archives-Hash: cd6083163064fef9cd01ca58b3c60d03 On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> On 2 June 2012 03:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> Yes. Which basically means, you *cannot* have both >> >> a) rebase only merges >> and >> b) every commit must be signed >> >> as policies. >> > > I would say that this is a very strong argument in favour of allowing merge > commits. One advantage of merge commits with signatures is that the history really does reflect who signed what. Proxy maintainer signs a bunch of ebuilds. I merge them in. The commits show that the proxy maintainer signed a bunch of work done against an old tree, and I signed a bunch of merge diffs that basically synced them up to the new tree. However, this is missing another issue. What is the value of preserving all those original signatures in the first place? I'd think that they'd mainly be used as some kind of web-of-trust. Well, would such a web-of-trust include proxy maintainers in the first place? If you want the tree to be traceable to Gentoo devs, then rewriting the signatures is probably a good thing. However, Kent did point out the rebase function doesn't actually apply new signatures to the "new old" commits anyway, so you'd end up with unsigned commits in the history. git-rebase is just a shell script, that ultimately just calls git-commit as far as I can see, which means that implementing re-signing is just a matter of adding the appropriate parameters, or use default configuration (assuming it doesn't already do this). Rich