2011-05-02 02:16:49 Markos Chandras napisał(a):
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
> > > What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
> > > still a lot of signing with a single key
On 01-05-2011 19:43:48 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> My personal feeling is that we should keep the changelogs as-is, and
> include removals, until we're on git. Then we should re-evaluate.
git doesn't magically solve all the problems!
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
> > What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
> > still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards
> > of a loss of int
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 07:43:48PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
> > crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
>
> My personal feeling is that we should keep the change
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
> crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
Well, more like get any one of the keys and you get the tree, since
portage only validates that a trusted key signed a packag
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
> What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
> still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards
> of a loss of integrity there aren't as high as with most of the tree
> content. It'd
On 01-05-2011 14:55:24 +, Duncan wrote:
> Fabian Groffen posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 12:00:17 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > Attachment not shown: MIME type chemical/x-genbank; filename
> > ChangeLog.gen
>
> Had to laugh at that one. =:^)
Apologies, the .gen extension apparently made the MIME matc
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:44 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
> I'm fine with shipping a trimmed down versions to users, but I think the
> full version must be easy to access.
If the changelogs were accessible via a predicable URL then a simple
command-line tool or portage option might display them
On 4/30/11 3:05 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> On 14:28 Sat 30 Apr , Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> If you read the last paragraph in my suggestion was to cycle the logs...
> Maybe this would be better together with a mechanism (automatic?) to keep the
> complete ChangeLogs (as they are no
On 14:28 Sat 30 Apr , Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> If you read the last paragraph in my suggestion was to cycle the logs...
Maybe this would be better together with a mechanism (automatic?) to keep the
complete ChangeLogs (as they are now) somewhere (but not in the main
tree). Sometimes, full hi
10 matches
Mail list logo
