lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)
    On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:

    > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
    >
    >> I hate how anonymous our branches are. Sure, we can use good names for
    >> them, but it was a mistake to think we should describe the repository
    >> (for gitweb), rather than the branch.
    >>
    >> Ok, "hate" is a strong word. I don't "hate" it. I don't even think
    >> it's a major design issue. But I do think that it would have been
    >> nicer if we had had some branch description model.
    >> ...
    >> Maybe just verifying the email message (with the suggested kind of
    >> change to "git request-pull") is actually the right approach. And what
    >> I should do is to just wrap my "git pull" in some script that I can
    >> just cut-and-paste the gpg-signed thing into, and which just does the
    >> "gpg --verify" on it, and then does the "git pull" after that.
    >>
    >> Because in many ways, "git request-pull" is when you do want to sign
    >> stuff. A developer might well want to push out his stuff for some
    >> random internal testing (linux-next, for example), and then only later
    >> decide "Ok, it was all good, now I want to make it 'official' and ask
    >> Linus to pull it", and sign it at *that* time, rather than when
    >> actually pushing it out.
    >
    > You keep saying cut-and-paste, but do you mind feeding the e-mail text
    > itself to a tool, instead of cut-and-paste?

    think webmail (i.e. gmail), to feed the e-mail itself to a tool you either
    need to cut-n-paste the entire e-mail or you have to first save the mail
    to a text file. both of which are significantly harder than doing a
    cut-n-past of a portion of the message.

    David Lang

    > The reason I am wondering about this is because in another topic (also in
    > 'next') cooking there is an extended support for topic description for the
    > branch that states what the purpose of the topic is why the requestor
    > wants you to have it (this information can be set and updated with "git
    > branch --edit-description").
    >
    > A respond-to-request-pull wrapper you would use could be:
    >
    > - Get the e-mail from the standard input;
    > - Pick up the signed bits and validate the signature;
    > - Perform the requested fetch; and
    > - Record the merge (or prepare .git/MERGE_MSG) with both the signed bits.
    >
    > and the "signed bits" could include:
    >
    > - the repository and the branch you were expected to pull;
    > - the topic description.
    >
    > among other things the requestor can edit when request-pull message is
    > prepared.
    >
    > That would get us back to your "the lieutenant tip is not so special, but
    > the merge commit the integrator makes using that tip has the signature for
    > this particular pull" model.
    > --
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    >


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-11-03 00:45    [W:0.025 / U:0.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site