From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Signing git tags for releases Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:06:33 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87tufpy9ii.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20695"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 08 23:07:35 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mv566-0005AI-Nr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 23:07:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36856 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mv565-0002hD-51 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:07:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49034) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mv55A-0001zU-Nk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:06:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pg1-f179.google.com ([209.85.215.179]:38694) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mv559-0002tJ-9K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:06:36 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pg1-f179.google.com with SMTP id s137so3257750pgs.5 for ; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:06:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UJegSFopC2r04SdKHTRHcoVBi4mzvDJBK076Ix3D5zE=; b=s4z/nj2LV1+0zz4zo0ESgitfTVizR9gARSBbD2WLjFJYAGXqiYqTxuJFA4rmSE7R2u RE7z9WzPrHYNLKrqCgnBQGxGkhYqLBlQTyPvemcHM7lfEuLN6flVtwOc1Vjd5cffPBcG O7dauFSjqVy/VoRbLK3eQ76HsXWAP3ZY5S77jICCMAONn/4lb2xda7r/2e9+BC4zz9yE VHBdlN0QEHwsPOtvp0grlQjTmIBKcrRJfl0XKI5AcxB/2s8RzyQODBlTiBvl5KizV7Ze P19/7AbPPb/uyPMjkirHz6pwWysl9lE3Ur4f8ewWUijKn2hNJtXRerLOR9FH5CKKAwau s4kQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532kemtVTV2NxkHd7cPG2RdNKdCROA+OFuZuRzg2IXBSCepgthaF 1XkynrVnEybB+xnvRqVoxrAqW6SNy1VLtyexF24= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJypUpfVDoxVqm7Nj21xAgiH3smLB3Et0USIrpzCBkTOhJIEDtpKXK9YJ7pOCTkqSWiskihGnDbYM1yJyWJdTa0= X-Received: by 2002:a63:f4a:: with SMTP id 10mr30673733pgp.435.1639001193775; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:06:33 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:06:33 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87tufpy9ii.fsf@gnus.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.179; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg1-f179.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -13 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:281401 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Stefan Kangas writes: > >> I would like to suggest that we start signing git tags in our >> repository. This would give greater confidence that a particular commit >> is in fact the one corresponding to a particular release (e.g. the one >> with some security fix and not an older one). > > I'm in favour -- I think many (most?) larger projects do it this way > now. But I have no idea whether there's any drawbacks. There have been no other comments within a week, besides the one from Teemu Likonen who spotted a mistake in the patch I proposed. If anyone has anything more to add here, there is still some time to speak up before it is time for the second pretest. If I don't see any further comments until then, I will go ahead with the proposed plan. Thanks.