[LEDE-DEV] Proposal to sign all commits

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-06 08:28 PM, Kus wrote:
> Daniel, I like what you said. I hinted something like that in the original message.

Er, sorry which part - I think you mean about fast-forward only and not
the ideal world where everything is always tested no matter who it's from?

Regards,

Daniel

> 
> I don't like the idea of making changes to history after it is published. Personally, I don't care about commit pollution but if the team thinks it is important, then we should squash commits before we merge with master.

History should never be rewritten in a *public* (meaning one that is
supposed to be pulled from rather than a feature or staging branch that
is intended for testing and rebasing and so on) branch.  Ever. IMNSHO.

(Unless it's something like a personal tree on github that hasn't been
forked and you have no reason believe someone else has even noticed it,
yet, and you have a good reason).

In other branches only history not already in public branches should be
rewritten else you've got an ugly problem.

> In an ideal world, we'd make all commits on master and we'd have 100% confidence that each commit is guaranteed to cause no regression. If wishes were fishes...

Heh, if that were the case we'd be the robots that took over the world
because we were better than our human creators....

> Maybe require all commits in master be signed and encourage but not require signing for others? Would that be acceptable?
> 

Make sense to me.

Regards,

Daniel