Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)
- From
- david@lang.hm <david@lang.hm>
- Date
- Nov 2, 2011, 23:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.2.02.1111021640340.20915@asgard.lang.hm>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vsjm6gkte.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 25 quoted lines
> 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
Show 29 quoted lines
> 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 >