Mike Gerwitz <mikegerwitz at gnu.org> writes:
> It has since improved; I'm looking for the time to update the article,
> or write a follow-up.
Thanks for an amusing read. We also let you merge a signed tag
these days, so that in a variant of your merge scenario #2, your
merge commit can carry your GPG signature, made when you do the "git
merge -S $other_history" to merge $other_history you obtained from
your trusted colleague, as well as the signed tag your trusted
colleague made with her GPG signature. That way, upon seeing that
merge, a third-party can verify that the merge was made by you, and
also the history of the side branch integrated to your history with
that merge is vouched by your trustred colleague.
I am however not quite sure what conclusion you are trying to drive
at by contrasting approaches #2 and #3. The perceived problem of
approach #2, if I am reading you correctly, is that the merge is
what you vouch for but the commits on the side branch are not signed
so there is no way for you (as the merge creator) to point fingers
to when the result of the merge turns out to be problematic. The
argument for approach #3 would be that it would give you (as the
merge creator) somebody to point fingers to if you forced others who
ask you to pull from them to sign their commits.
But I am not sure if that is the right way to look at the bigger
picture.
Imagine you are working on a project with two branches, maint and
master. The policy adopted by the project is to use the maint
branch to prepare for the next maintenance release, which should
never add new features. New features are to be merged to master
for the next feature release.
And imagine that you made a mistake of merging somebody else's
branch that adds a new feature, which happens to be perfectly done
and introduces no bug, to the maint branch. Your merge is signed by
your GPG key.
Does it absolve you from blame if you can say with certainty (thanks
to GPG keys on them) that those commits on the side branch that adds
unwanted (from 'maint' policy's point of view) new feature were made
by somebody else, because the project used the approach #3?
Not really.
How would that case be any different from the case where the side
branch you merged were buggy or even malicious? After all, your GPG
signature carries more weight than "Yes, I did this random merge but
I did so without thinking about what damage it causes to the history
by pulling in other peoples' changes". Or at least it should carry
more weight to your users who trust a history having your GPG
signature. "This history is coming from Mike whom we trust" is what
your users expect, no? When you sign your merge with "merge -S",
you are vouching for the contents of the whole tree, not just "I
made this merge, but I don't have anything to do with what it pulled
in." It does not really matter to the end users where the changes
came from. You are certifying that "git diff HEAD^ HEAD" after
making the merge is what you are pleased with by signing the merge.
Having said that, what approach #3 (or merging a signed tag) does
give you as the merge creator is a distrubution of trust. You may
not have to be _so_ careful verifying "git diff HEAD^ HEAD" of the
merge when you know you can trust the side branch you are merging
into your history was done by somebody you trust.
But ultimately, the responsibility lies on the person who creates
the topmost merge and advances the tip of the history the users of
the end product of the project considers the authoritative one.
More information about the Whonix-devel
mailing list
“Look here!” Dick began to chuckle. “We’ve got a queer combination to work with—our Sky Patrol has! Suspicious Sandy—and—Superstitious Jeff!” Sandy grinned ruefully, a little sheepishly. Larry smiled and shook his head, warning Dick not to carry his sarcasm any further, as Jeff frowned. 52 "You do doubt me. If you did not, it would never occur to you to deny it. You doubt me now, and you will doubt me still more if you don't read it. In justice to me you must." "That same. She was part Mescalero, anyway." This Act, as disgraceful as any which ever dishonoured the statute-book in the reigns of the Tudors or Stuarts, was introduced into the Commons, on the 12th of May, by Sir William Wyndham, and was resolutely opposed by the Whigs, amongst whom Sir Peter King, Sir Joseph Jekyll, Mr. Hampden, Robert Walpole, and General Stanhope distinguished themselves. They did not convince the majority, which amounted to no less than two hundred and thirty-seven to one hundred and twenty-six. In the Lords, Bolingbroke himself moved the second reading, and it was ably opposed by the Lords Cowper, Wharton, Halifax, Townshend, Nottingham, and others. The greatest curiosity was displayed regarding the part which Oxford would take, as it was known that in the Council he had endeavoured to soften the rigorous clauses; but in the House he followed his usual shuffling habit, declaring that he had not yet considered the question; and, having induced the Opposition to let the second reading pass without a division, he absented himself from the final voting, and thus disgusted both parties and hastened his own fall. The battle of Falkirk, which in itself appeared so brilliant an affair for Prince Charles, was really one of his most serious disasters. The Highlanders, according to their regular custom when loaded with plunder, went off in great numbers to their homes with their booty. His chief officers became furious against each other in discussing their respective merits in the battle. Lord George Murray, who had himself behaved most bravely in the field, complained that Lord John Drummond had not exerted himself, or pursuit might have been made and the royal army been utterly annihilated. This spirit of discontent was greatly aggravated by the siege of the castle of Stirling. Old General Blakeney, who commanded the garrison, declared he would hold out to the last man, in spite of the terrible threats of Lord George Murray if he did not surrender. The Highlanders grew disgusted with work so contrary to their habits; and, indeed, the French engineer, the so-called Marquis de Mirabelle, was so utterly ignorant of his profession, that the batteries which he constructed were commanded by the castle, and the men were so much exposed that they were in danger of being destroyed before they took the fortress. Accordingly, on the 24th of January they struck to a man, and refused to go any more into the trenches. "Haint we bit off more'n we kin chaw. Shorty?" asked Si, as he looked over the increasing gang. "Hadn't we better ask for some help?" "How far would it carry?" Corpril, Company Q, 2 Hundsrdth Injiamiy Volintear "He d?an't care much. F?ather, he likes to be comfortable, and this Inclosure w?an't make much difference to that. 'T?un't as if we wanted the pasture badly, and F?ather he d?an't care about land." "Byles," interrupted Calverley, speaking rapidly, "you are poor—you are in arrear with your rent; a distress will be levied, and then what will become of you—of your wife and the little one? Listen to me! I will give you money to keep a house over your head; and when I am steward, you shall have the first farm at my lord's disposal, if you will only aid me in my revenge! Revenge!" he repeated, vehemently—"but you hesitate—you refuse." "Yes, yes, there is little doubt of that: but how can we come at the truth? Sudbury still retains his wrath against us, and would oppose an arrest; and even could he be waylaid, and brought hither, he is stubborn, and might refuse to answer." HoME一级做人爱c视正版免费
ENTER NUMBET 0017 qure4.com.cn be365.com.cn www.sanxi8.net.cn wjl.org.cn duzhe2.net.cn www.fangbb.com.cn www.tuqiu6.net.cn www.cijie9.com.cn www.au74.com.cn 37429.com.cn