Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
For artifacts we upload to third-party services like PyPI and Docker
Hub on the other hand, assuming I've digested (pun intended) the
relevant literature correctly, it might make more sense for the
maintainers of those services to do something similar as they tend
to perform a fair amount of URL indirection and so trying to keep up
historical data for those URLs ourselves could be tricky. On the
other hand if those third-party services were to integrate rget
updating as part of their infrastructure it would be a lot more
seamless (especially if they similarly integrated CT checks into the
corresponding client-side tooling).
Another challenge I see is that, due to the fact that most of what
we host is source code, and most consumers of our source code are
obtaining it via Git rather than release artifacts, rget wouldn't
really do much for them as far as I can see... though once Git
completes its planned transition to SHA2-256 in the coming years, I
could see a call for some solution to publish known object hashes to
a CT log in a similar fashion. I suppose it could be done now by
re-checksumming all content over a Git object and submitting a
certificate for that, but it seems a bit heavy-weight and I'll admit
to not having thought through it completely so there are likely
hidden gotchas with that idea.
I agree with Jeremy, it seems to cover a limited amount of use cases
(people who download tarball source releases from releases.o.o). But
covering only a few use cases is not a reason not to do it: we should
support it for the same reason we provide signatures for released
artifacts right now. Furthermore it is an initiative I'm fine being
early adopters of this idea, if only so that one day we may find it
covering other ways to retrieve our deliverables (pypi, git).
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
