Re: In Support of ELPA

[phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>>> Can GnuPG signatures satisfy that requirement so the code can be pulled?
>
> RS> The question is so vague that I can't relate it to the issue at hand.
> RS> GPG signatures delivered by whom, when, signing what, to achieve what
> RS> purpose?
>
> Sorry for the vagueness.
>
> I mean that maintainers of packages can use GnuPG signatures in Git to
> sign a particular tag.

If we trust someone to sign a tag, why not just trust them not to merge
code into upstream?

> So maybe that's enough to let the GNU ELPA pull instead of requiring
> maintainers to push, because the signature will guarantee that the
> code has been reviewed for copyright and other requirements. The
> verification can be automated.

Simply having a list of assignees and their aliases to achieve
approximately the same thing.


> I think a pull-based system like that would reduce friction and increase
> contributions, because maintainers won't have to get access to elpa.git
> or push anything. They would just do a release tag as part of their
> normal workflow.


Yep. Compare MELPA and marmalade. (Side-track) I tend to agree with Nic
Ferriers concerns about emacs packages (end side-track). The fantastic
ease of use of MELPA (i.e. set it up, then do nothing that you are not
doing anyway) is a big reason for its success.

Phil