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

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 10/31/2011 03:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> It certainly lets you run "git tag --verify" after you pulled and will
>> give you assurance that you pulled the right thing from the right person,
>> but what do you plan to do to the tag from your lieutenants after you
>> fetched and verified?  I count 379 merges by you between 3.0 (2011-07-21)
>> and 3.1 (2011-10-24), which would mean you would see 4-5 tags per day on
>> average.  Will these tags be pushed out to your public history?
> 
> No, you misunderstand.
> 
> I can do that kind of "crazy manual check of a tag" today. And it's
> too painful to be useful in the long run (or even the short run - I'd
> much prefer the pgp signature in the email which is easier to check
> and more visible anyway). Fetching a tag by name and saving it as a
> tag is indeed pointless.
> 
> But what would be nice is that "git pull" would fetch the tag (based
> on name) *automatically*, and not actually create a tag in my
> repository at all. Instead, if would use the tag to check the
> signature, and - if we do this right - also use the tag contents to
> populate the merge commit message.
> 
> In other words, no actual tag would ever be left around as a turd, it
> would simply be used as an automatic communication channel between the
> "git push -s" of the submitter and my subsequent "git pull". Neither
> side would have to do anything special, and the tag would never show
> up in any relevant tree (it could even be in a totally separate
> namespace like "refs/pullmarker/<branchname>" or something).
> 

Perhaps we should introduce the notion of a "private tag" or something
along those lines?  (I guess that would still have to be possible to
push it, but not pull it by default...)

	-hpa