On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them > have to be signed once again? >
The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either good or bad based on your perspective). So, if 14 devs spend 3 years and 2000 commits working on something in a branch, and I commit it to master using a rebase, then all you'll see in the master history is that rich0 committed 20k lines of code to master on May 31st, and that would be signed by me. I think that rebasing before merging is a pretty typical workflow anyway - when you submit a patch to Linus, he doesn't really care that you spent six months tweaking it - he just is getting a big blob of code that either works or doesn't. Does all that sub-history really matter? You could always push the branch to the repository if you wanted to keep it on the side. Rich
