Date:	Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	git@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-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

> 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@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists