git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [Survey] Signed push

From
Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
Date
Sep 14, 2011, 01:03 UTC
Message-ID
<4E6FFD52.7050907@vilain.net>
In-Reply-To
<CAJo=hJt-n0Xn85g7-7eEgxZhsBu8wd843dvvbaJgdYSx3t4Xug@mail.gmail.com>
On 9/13/11 5:39 PM, Shawn Pearce wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> >  If the push certificate also has the previous commit IDs for the changed
> >  refs, then you actually have an audit log.  Otherwise, it does not certify
> >  the commit range they pushed.
> Is that necessary? The range they are certifying is that commit, and
> its entire ancestry. If the pusher doesn't trust his ancestry, why is
> he working with it? Similar to an annotated tag. I make a signed
> annotated tag, I am asserting that revision and its ancestry is
> something I like as far as a project build goes. You don't need the
> old revision to realize I like this commit.

Perhaps because they didn't notice what happened. Someone else pushed to the server without a signed push somehow, and then they pulled, pushed ... and now as far as you know, those commits are certified like any other. Having this extra information, not much information, will help figure out what happens in this sort of situation.

Show 17 quoted lines
>> This is an important prerequisite for a fully distributed, peer to peer git.
>>   For this case it would also need something to distinguish which repository
>> is to be updated; such as a canonical repository URL (or list of URLs), or
>> just a short project name.  A P2P protocol can then know projects as (KEYID,
>> projectname).
> Why do we need a project name? Most Git based projects are uniquely
> identified by the set of root commits they have. Why? Because most
> root commits were created by different people, at different times,
> with different commit messages, and different initial trees, resulting
> in a unique commit SHA-1 for that root commit. Projects with more than
> one root commit also disambiguate themselves from other projects that
> maybe contain one of those roots (e.g. git.git vs. gitk).
>
> If you wanted to identify a project on a P2P network, I think you
> would want to do it based off the root commits, not some random name
> people came up with and might try to publish forgeries under.
>

Yes, this is true, but it also makes it a lot harder to figure out if two projects are from the same real project, or whether they just shared some history. In general, git repositories are partitioned by URL or project, and so this makes a soft case for a distributed system to partition itself by URL or project also.

Sam
Previous: Shawn PearceNext: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
Message 10 of 62 in “[Survey] Signed push”
  1. Junio C HamanoSep 13, 2011
  2. 0/2 State commit name explicitly in request-pull messagesJunio C Hamano, Sep 13, 2011
  3. 1/2 fetch: allow asking for an explicit commit object by nameJunio C Hamano, Sep 13, 2011
  4. 2/2 request-pull: state exact commit object nameJunio C Hamano, Sep 13, 2011
  5. Guenter RoeckSep 13, 2011
  6. Junio C HamanoSep 13, 2011
  7. Junio C HamanoSep 14, 2011
  8. Sam VilainSep 14, 2011
  9. Shawn PearceSep 14, 2011
  10. Sam VilainSep 14, 2011
  11. Nguyen Thai Ngoc DuySep 14, 2011
  12. Jonathan NiederSep 14, 2011
  13. Nguyen Thai Ngoc DuySep 14, 2011
  14. Jeff KingSep 15, 2011
  15. Andy LutomirskiSep 14, 2011
  16. Junio C HamanoSep 14, 2011
  17. Andrew LutomirskiSep 14, 2011
  18. Fwd: [Survey] Signed pushLinus Torvalds, Sep 14, 2011
  19. Michael HaggertySep 14, 2011
  20. Matthieu MoySep 14, 2011
  21. Nguyen Thai Ngoc DuySep 14, 2011
  22. Johan HerlandSep 14, 2011
  23. Ted Ts'oSep 14, 2011
  24. Linus TorvaldsSep 14, 2011
  25. Matthieu MoySep 14, 2011
  26. Johan HerlandSep 14, 2011
  27. Philip OakleySep 14, 2011
  28. Linus TorvaldsSep 14, 2011
  29. Junio C HamanoSep 14, 2011
  30. Linus TorvaldsSep 14, 2011
  31. Junio C HamanoSep 14, 2011
  32. Linus TorvaldsSep 14, 2011
  33. Junio C HamanoSep 14, 2011
  34. Sam VilainSep 14, 2011
  35. request-pull: state what commit to expectJunio C Hamano, Sep 16, 2011
  36. Junio C HamanoSep 20, 2011
  37. 2/3 branch: teach --edit-description optionJunio C Hamano, Sep 20, 2011
  38. Andrew ArdillSep 21, 2011
  39. Junio C HamanoSep 21, 2011
  40. request-pull: use the branch descriptionJunio C Hamano, Sep 20, 2011
  41. 0/6 A handful of "branch description" patchesJunio C Hamano, Sep 22, 2011
  42. 1/6 branch: add read_branch_desc() helper functionJunio C Hamano, Sep 22, 2011
  43. 2/6 format-patch: use branch description in cover letterJunio C Hamano, Sep 22, 2011
  44. 3/6 branch: teach --edit-description optionJunio C Hamano, Sep 22, 2011
  45. Michael J GruberSep 23, 2011
  46. Nguyen Thai Ngoc DuySep 23, 2011
  47. Junio C HamanoSep 23, 2011
  48. Nguyen Thai Ngoc DuySep 25, 2011
  49. 4/6 request-pull: modernize styleJunio C Hamano, Sep 22, 2011
  50. 5/6 request-pull: state what commit to expectJunio C Hamano, Sep 22, 2011
  51. 6/6 request-pull: use the branch descriptionJunio C Hamano, Sep 22, 2011
  52. Michael J GruberSep 23, 2011
  53. Jeff KingSep 23, 2011
  54. Junio C HamanoSep 23, 2011
  55. Jeff KingSep 23, 2011
  56. Michael J GruberSep 24, 2011
  57. Jeff KingSep 27, 2011
  58. Annotated branch ≈ annotated tag?Michael Haggerty, Sep 28, 2011
  59. Andrew ArdillSep 28, 2011
  60. Michael HaggertySep 28, 2011
  61. Branch annotations [Re: Annotated branch ≈ annotated tag?]Michael J Gruber, Sep 28, 2011
  62. Jeff KingSep 29, 2011

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.