From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Update Git to 2.9.0 Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:41:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20160619174128.GA28440@jasmine> References: <87mvmhz39m.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37836) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bEgjB-00034r-84 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:41:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bEgj7-00087Y-2F for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:41:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mvmhz39m.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 04:01:25PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Sounds reasonable; ‘git commit’ still honors ‘commit.gpgsign’, right? Yes, that still works as expected, at least in the simple case. > > The commit text seems to imply that `git rebase` would no longer re-sign > > commits, but that's not the case from my tests. > > OK. It would be bad if ‘git rebase’ would silently discard signatures. > Thanks for paying attention to this! I'm not sure what you mean exactly. If you rebase some signed commits, the commits whose history changes will lose their signatures, because they are no longer the same commits. But, I noticed this with previous versions of Git also. Because we never rewrite history once it's been on Savannah's master branch, the only commits that need to be re-signed after rebase are my own commits, so far seen only on my local repo. I've never needed to rebase others' commits, so their signatures are unaffected. Does that make sense?