On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 05/08/2016 07:07 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to preserve
>>> commit signatures when e.g. merging someone else's work.
>> Correct, but if the person applying the commits to tree is in fact
>> reviewing them as they go, then the fact they re-sign it with their
>> own signature
>> ( and changing the commits "Committed by" in the process ) pretty much
>> means the chain of custody is preserved.
> And it is a requirement in particular in the case where the author is
> not a gentoo dev as the certificate used for the signature otherwise
> isn't recognized. The committing developer will need to have a local
> framework in place for certificate validation to ensure that the author
> is authentic, after that the committing author is responsible for all
> behavior of the commit.

Keep in mind that you can have both.  You can both preserve the
original commit with its signature, and introduce it as a merge commit
with a Gentoo signature.

I'm not saying we necessarily should do this, but certainly git makes
this possible, and it is a potential benefit of merge commits.

However, in this case it would not be possible to rebase the original
commit, which introduces some of the uncleanliness of non-rebased
merge commits.  In general I'm a fan of rebasing merge commits.


Reply via email to