Re: [Survey] Signed push

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> An alternative that I am considering is to let the requester say this
>> instead:
>>
>>    are available in the git repository at:
>>      git://git.kernel.org/pub/flobar.git/ 5738c9c21e53356ab5020912116e7f82fd2d428f
[...]
> Stupid question, if we agree to go with signed push, can we also sign
> pull requests and verify them when we pull? I suppose most of the
> time, pulling can be done automatically by extracting pull url from
> the request. This would make pull/push both signed.
>
> BTW, there's a third way (rsync is obsolete) to carry changes away in
> human-unreadable way: bundles. Should we also sign the bundles too (I
> guess we could just do the same as in signed push).

If I understand you correctly, then ordinary PGP email signing[1]
should work for that already.  In your first example, the receiver can
make sure whatever process grabs a pull request verifies it, and in
the second example, the receiver checks the signature on her email
before saving a bundle and passing it to "git fetch".

[1] http://www.phildev.net/pgp/gpgmua.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]