On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 03:25:43 +1200 Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 June 2012 03:12, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> "git cat-file -p $sha" is as close as you can get to commit objects > >> without needing to write your own decompressing wrapper. But it > >> gives the same results. > > > > Now, does the "signed data" also contain the parent sha? > > > > If yes, our discussion about rebasing is moot, because a rebase > > will in every case destroy previous signatures. > > > > Yes. Which basically means, you *cannot* have both > > a) rebase only merges > and > b) every commit must be signed > > as policies. > > At very best, I think either > a) a future git might support signed rebases ( ie: replacing existing > signatures with new signatures in the name of the person performing > the rebase ) > or > b) somebody could write a wrapper that provides signed-rebase support > until git get around to implementing it natively. > > and even then, you're going to lose original signing info ( Though, > thats no worse than the signer of the manifest file changing every > sign ) Yes, it's no worse so we're practically considering implementing a very complex mechanism for no real benefit. As I see it, as good would be only requiring some kind of 'top-level' commits to be signed. For example, if one does merge a branch to the tree, a signed merge commit should already be good enough for us. Not sure if git is able to do that, however... -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
