On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > Since commits (and everything else really) happens on the client, you cannot > really enforce things. The client has complete control over their copy of > the repository.
Auto-shun improperly signed commits? But: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski <l...@maxnet.org.pl> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2011, at 18:31 , Mike Meyer wrote: >> Since the worry is usually about the "main" repo, how about an >> enhancement that disallows pushing/pulling changes that aren't signed >> with an approved key? > > I was also thinking about it, but there is one major problem. What with > properly signed changes, that have as their ancestors changes that were not > signed. Richard's idea of specially tagging/highlighting improperly signed commits would be able to deal with this, since nothing is not saved. However, seems to me that part of being an approved commiter would be a responsibility to either ignore or indendantly vet and merge changes resulting from improperly signed commits. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
