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. -- Rich
