From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Signed push Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:22:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20110910192225.GA5397@thunk.org> References: <1315512102-19022-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <1315600904-17032-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <7vipp1otyp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vehzopdga.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sverre Rabbelier , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , "Shawn O. Pearce" To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 11 01:08:10 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R2Weg-0007Y5-AQ for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:08:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934128Ab1IJWzt (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:55:49 -0400 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:52629 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934120Ab1IJWzs (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:55:48 -0400 Received: from root (helo=tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com) by test.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R2WSf-0000Wq-JF; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:55:45 +0000 Received: from tytso by tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R2T8D-0002Lg-Ir; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:22:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vehzopdga.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on test.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 09:30:29AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Sverre Rabbelier writes: > > > I think this is also some further motivation to have a > > Did you miss that I already mentioned that workaround? It does not _fix_ > the fundamental breakage, which is that you are _forcing_ the sending side > to keep copies, though. I guess I'm confused about what the problem is with this? If I do something like this: git tag -s -m for_linus-20110910 for_linus-20110910 git push github git push --tags github I'm "forcing" the sending side to keep the signed tag, no? Isn't that kind of implicit in allowing someone to push to your repo? - Ted