linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALKQrgdxEXQGKQ3t9Sh82=U933ypHNg8duyVmG9uJbg2iST5fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:03:17 +0100
From:	Johan Herland <johan@...land.net>
To:	Junio C Hamano <junio@...ox.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Shawn Pearce <spearce@...arce.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 Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 16:15, Junio C Hamano <junio@...ox.com> wrote:
> Johan Herland <johan@...land.net> writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 18:26, Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com> wrote:
>>>  - "git notes" is represented as a commit that records a tree that holds
>>>   the entire mapping from commit to its annotations, and the only way to
>>>   transferr it is to send it together with its history as a whole. It
>>>   does not have the nice auto-following property that transfers only the
>>>   relevant annotations.
>>
>> True. However, consider these mitigating factors:
>> ...
>>
>> My point is that although "notes" might end up transferring more
>> annotations than strictly necessary, I believe that in practice all the
>> notes being transferred are already (or will soon become) relevant.
>
> Sorry, but I do not think you are considering what would happen when you
> have many branches with different purposes, whose commits near tips will
> never get merged with each other. "automatic following" semantics like
> what "git fetch" does for signed tags is absolutely necessary in such a
> case, and the above are not mitigating factors at all in that context.

What about having one notes ref per branch? If/when the branch is merged,
the associated notes ref containing the annotations for the commits on that
branch would be merged as well (using "git notes merge").

Sure, using one notes ref per branch is more expensive than a single notes
ref, but it's still cheaper than one ref per signed commit (which is what we
get when using annotated tags). And it prevents the added code and
complexity of the timestamped mapping approach.


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@...land.net>
www.herland.net
--
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/