Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2011, 20:53 UTC
Message-ID: <7v8vo0q3ve.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20111031203059.GJ16825@thunk.org>

Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Suppose the project wasn't Linus, but some other project, say, a
> ...
> this, and are good (Kevin Mitnick or better) at social engineering
> attacks.
>
> In this sort of scenario, it's useful if *other* people could
> independently verify the Troll3 git tree via the crypto signatures,
> even though the central maintainer couldn't be bothered to check the
> crypto signatures.

I think we are in total agreement here ;-)

> Here's an idea.... what if the "signed push" information could be
> embedded into the merge commit's description? That is, the
> information could sent via a signed git tag, or some other mechanism,...

I think you described what the signed-commit series that is cooking in 'next' is about way better than I have done so far ;-)

The contributors sign the tips of their histories (which can independently be validated), the integrator pulls and can choose to bother or not to bother the tips s/he obtains, and the integrator signs his/her tip before s/he pushes the integration result out for general consumption.

> ...
> The problem with notes and tags is that they have to be pushed
> separately, and might get lost; where as if they are stored in the
> merge commit's description, they will always be there.

Exactly.