-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Perhaps signing merge commits is good enough. It wouldn't require new
contributors to do something more and it will be easier to keep track of the
public keys for a small group of people.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: APG v1.1.1
iQJRBAEBC
On Fri, 6 May 2016, Kus wrote:
Daniel, I like what you said. I hinted something like that in the original
message.
I don't like the idea of making changes to history after it is published.
Personally, I don't care about commit pollution but if the team thinks it is
important, then we should
On the signature agree
On 16-05-06 08:26 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>
>
> This gets back to the question about what we are trying to achieve by
> signing the commits.
>
> If the purpose is to track who put what into the central tree, then
> having the me
On 16-05-06 08:28 PM, Kus wrote:
> Daniel, I like what you said. I hinted something like that in the original
> message.
Er, sorry which part - I think you mean about fast-forward only and not
the ideal world where everything is always tested no matter who it's from?
Regards,
Daniel
>
> I don
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Daniel, I like what you said. I hinted something like that in the original
message.
I don't like the idea of making changes to history after it is published.
Personally, I don't care about commit pollution but if the team thinks it is
important,
On Fri, 6 May 2016, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi David,
One thing your suggestion does though, is mean that the initial commits
are not created on the master branch (for which there are few
committers), so the idea that signing all commits shouldn't be an issue
because there are only a few specia
Hi David,
One thing your suggestion does though, is mean that the initial commits
are not created on the master branch (for which there are few
committers), so the idea that signing all commits shouldn't be an issue
because there are only a few special souls who create commits is not
actually the
On 16-05-06 02:58 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016, Kus wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd argue such a barrier is OK if we want to quickly increase the size
>> of the team of people with commit access. I think we're
>> underestimating our contributors here. I agree that we shouldn't have
>> unnecessary
On Fri, 6 May 2016, Kus wrote:
Regarding signing commits with GPG key, it would be nice to recommend it but
making it a requirement sounds like a barrier.
I'd argue such a barrier is OK if we want to quickly increase the size of the
team of people with commit access. I think we're underestima
On 16-05-06 11:55 AM, Kus wrote:
>
>> Regarding signing commits with GPG key, it would be nice to recommend it but
>> making it a requirement sounds like a barrier.
>
> I'd argue such a barrier is OK if we want to quickly increase the size of the
> team of people with commit access. I think we'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
> Regarding signing commits with GPG key, it would be nice to recommend it but
> making it a requirement sounds like a barrier.
I'd argue such a barrier is OK if we want to quickly increase the size of the
team of people with commit access. I thi
Hi,
I just signed up here.
On 05/06/2016 05:03 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I am concerned that git signing gives little, if any value, while making
>> it harder to contribute (and making it easier to contribute is one of
>> the *stated* goals of LEDE) and is another example of a tenden
Hi,
> I am concerned that git signing gives little, if any value, while making
> it harder to contribute (and making it easier to contribute is one of
> the *stated* goals of LEDE) and is another example of a tendency toward
> a particular brand of technical elitism that will kill this project if
I am concerned that git signing gives little, if any value, while making
it harder to contribute (and making it easier to contribute is one of
the *stated* goals of LEDE) and is another example of a tendency toward
a particular brand of technical elitism that will kill this project if
not nipped in
On Thu, 5 May 2016 19:56:04 +0200
Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> As I understand git's commit signing feature, the signature is
> something that is added by the committer, not the author. This means:
>
> - the format-patch/send-email format does *not* contain a signature
> - reviewed-by etc. can be
15 matches
Mail list logo
