On Thu, 5 May 2016, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
On 05/05/2016 07:43 PM, David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016, Ben Greear wrote:
On 05/05/2016 07:30 AM, Kus wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hi Ben,
Just to be clear. We're talking about signing git commits, not emails. I
apologize for my ugly emails though.
I don't want to sign those either. Signed-off-by and the actual code to
read (and revert if needed) is plenty. If there is a goal to allow more
easy access to be a contributor, then making someone figure out how to
sign commits is surely going the wrong direction.
Also, wouldn't signed commits prevent adding reviewd-by, acked-by, etc tags
to the commit message?
David Lang
As I understand git's commit signing feature, the signature is something
that is added by the committer, not the author. This means:
- the format-patch/send-email format does *not* contain a signature
- reviewed-by etc. can be added like before
- signatures are added by those with push access during commit, rebase, am,
... commands
correct, but if you do a pull request/merge, the person creating the commit
message isn't the person doing the merge, it's the person who created the commit
initially.
you could put reviewed-by etc in the merge message, but I don't think that's
nearly as useful as putting it in the actual commit messages.
David Lang
I like the idea of signing all commits (my commits are already signed by
default.)
Matthias
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
