Re: [Survey] Signed push
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 14, 2011, 21:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110914210512.GA20294@elie>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8Dwu2U-7eEZU-VYmcrA7JwtvUkJS5SywXjZWoE1twchhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
>> An alternative that I am considering is to let the requester say this >> instead: >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/flobar.git/ 5738c9c21e53356ab5020912116e7f82fd2d428f
[...]
Show 8 quoted lines
> Stupid question, if we agree to go with signed push, can we also sign > pull requests and verify them when we pull? I suppose most of the > time, pulling can be done automatically by extracting pull url from > the request. This would make pull/push both signed. > > BTW, there's a third way (rsync is obsolete) to carry changes away in > human-unreadable way: bundles. Should we also sign the bundles too (I > guess we could just do the same as in signed push).
If I understand you correctly, then ordinary PGP email signing[1] should work for that already. In your first example, the receiver can make sure whatever process grabs a pull request verifies it, and in the second example, the receiver checks the signature on her email before saving a bundle and passing it to "git fetch".
[1] http://www.phildev.net/pgp/gpgmua.html