On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Michał Górny wrote: > >> Do you really consider keeping a key open for machine signing >> somewhat secure? > > You mean, as compared to manifests (or commits) signed by 250 > different developers' keys? > > Ulrich
Unrelated to git discussion, in the past we discussed co-sign, so that developer signs using short term key, and infra co-sign using long term key if the developer sign is valid at that time. Portage infra should relay on infra key signature, while tractability is available up to developer. I will take the opportunity of responding to write that my preference is to keep the manifest signature detached from the version management technology, with no git specific feature usage, nor git specific development (signed hrefs). It will enable much easier use of each technology, one for file management and the other for security, while enabling rebase and reorg without effecting integrity. If we can establish co-sign I will be very happy. Regards, Alon
