Dnia 2014-09-21, o godz. 09:54:06 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > >> Ulrich is well-aware of that. His argument is that with cvs there > >> is no security whatsoever in the scm, and so there is more interest > >> in layering security on-top. With git there is more of a tendency > >> to rely on the less-than-robust commit signing system. > >> > >> We could always just keep full manifests in the tree and be no > >> worse off than with cvs. > > > And we would be no better off than with CVS. We'd have huge > > repository with a lot of redundant space-eating data and the > > impossibility of sane merges or rebases. > > Not necessarily. As long as you keep write access to the repository > secure, you don't need anything special there. However, it's a > different story when the tree is distributed via a mirror system that > is not entirely under our control. > > Full manifests could be generated automatically (and signed with an > infra key) when copying the tree from the repository to the master > mirror. Do you really consider keeping a key open for machine signing somewhat secure? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
