[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191020055033.GD4991@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 08:50:33 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Santiago Torres Arias <santiago@....edu>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
workflows@...r.kernel.org, Git Mailing List <git@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Wong <e@...24.org>
Subject: Re: email as a bona fide git transport
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 06:30:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:45:32PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:43:43PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> I wonder if it'd be also possible to then embed gpg signatures over
> >>> send-mail payloads so as they can be transparently transferred to the
> >>> commit.
> >>
> >> That's a crazy idea. It would be nice if we could do that, I like it :)
> >
> > It could only possibly work if nobody ever adds their own "Signed-Off-By" or
> > any other bylines. I expect this is a deal-breaker for most maintainers.
>
> Yeah it is :(
>
> But, if we could just have the signature on the code change, not the
> changelog text, that would help with that issue.
I ran into a related issue recently when thinking about how to implement
server-side workflows (for a non-kernel project). My goal is to ensure a
patch can only be pushed to the master branch if it has received review.
The easy way to do so it to check the Reviewed-by tags, but those can
easily be forged. I was thus wondering if we should have a way to sign
tags (as in commit message tags, not git tags).
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists