On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:58:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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.
You don't commit to master with a rebase,; it is always a merge. The type of merge is what controls what you see in the logs. If you rebase your branch on master, merge to master then run "git pull --rebase" then push, you will get a fast forward merge, which shows the individual commits. If you don't include the rebasing, you get another type of merge which just shows up in the logs as one commit afaik. William
pgpGov9QxG7kv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
