From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B391FADF for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 20:49:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756412AbeAHUtE (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:04 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:38293 "EHLO mail-qk0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751597AbeAHUtD (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:03 -0500 Received: by mail-qk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id j185so5077723qkc.5 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:49:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8yz5/clVP50PWUTAeRtq45YQk5VyPvrh+zMKs962OFU=; b=WiQGlb9bO8m09rJItg4DpC6nCR3VM84GqxPu9/9mP506Hf1zBHjedj/C/LAuK0MDYF IjtdZhvLOKZGKVzv3mR+i9EC5SB43klrgok6G5rlOIvhluCecuEtqwPTizVO9XEI8EKG u0lVQlvAdmgCwgL0U89eyj3rbzGRpDZOcc7KAWjMfWhFYzDA9QNxxps6gD6XhkGyOBHQ tcJ8tHt1z6xLYf6+1bQgqzp8n5fybe2KIuubCQNlSdOtjw2mPqInGw334eNRoPkR6ocp HXGR4k85Qh4HE8nOcZcraWo9H7A9MvwsH67CqMzC0W7Eo3SxcXKtaOej2L0lIIcYHhUs 8wXQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8yz5/clVP50PWUTAeRtq45YQk5VyPvrh+zMKs962OFU=; b=WS++wu2hoWiyjClEO6hn0WUE01X042rO2ZELsUHjXP4ZcH21INDOyI5nK1i7/kRvAo Yy/lKiNd/s+SBde2MUgqP2c5UTbRLMuLrwv4MTJZVp4Erul6/XKhf4iMtkQpGRp756Ad BT018ivDEZpY6bJHdYM39XI2eQRXBjRb0Xtvocf9Wekg4LbzX66hFjl/wUZUmREbREQW vTNhW8Ch2yYuxkU4zq78z7/rP7JmjPdOTvCu11VLYKNQG2o96tQIHZxp5f7pQyGPEepN oOoq0UeTcNYXJJSv1AeQK/9pJZPMcipU6Wq7e/CLFKtCOUXYiWitERbvo0zwEOLQUlL5 cM0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytebKfopPzqyO7KB8s2NNivmeAH2fCBhXJI6t/CZksY5I8Uok054 2ZLWUgCzuuYCTPync8+nOaUr80numQPeTP2dqaBLZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBove/FBvrioIU4UWe9pbWkJgvwq4PufOoOK2OQi+JJ5Wa5+igQ14uOn0KiIixpZ1yXSAScffBzUA7gTVvJDX6ug= X-Received: by 10.55.41.40 with SMTP id p40mr14268682qkh.133.1515444541913; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:49:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.85.179 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:49:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180108204029.m42qyezojak4kohh@LykOS.localdomain> References: <1515442320.3241451.1228399576.66D7DA96@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20180108204029.m42qyezojak4kohh@LykOS.localdomain> From: Stefan Beller Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:49:01 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: upstreaming https://github.com/cgwalters/git-evtag ? To: Santiago Torres Cc: Colin Walters , git Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Santiago Torres wrote: > Hi, > > I personally like the idea of git-evtags, but I feel that they could be > made so that push certificates (and being hash-algorithm agnostic) > should provide the same functionality with less code. > > To me, a git evtag is basically a signed tag + a data structure similar > to a push certificate embedded in it. I wonder if, with the current > tooling in git, this could be done as a custom command... In that case, why not migrate Git to a new hash function instead of adding a very niche fixup? See Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt for how to do it. Personally I'd dislike to include ev-tags as it might send a signal of "papering over sha1 issues instead of fixing it". push certificates are somewhat underdocumented, see the git-push man page, which contains --[no-]signed, --signed=(true|false|if-asked) GPG-sign the push request to update refs on the receiving side, to allow it to be checked by the hooks and/or be logged. If false or --no-signed, no signing will be attempted. If true or --signed, the push will fail if the server does not support signed pushes. If set to if-asked, sign if and only if the server supports signed pushes. The push will also fail if the actual call to gpg --sign fails. See git- receive-pack(1) for the details on the receiving end. Going to receive-pack(1), there is an excerpt: When accepting a signed push (see git-push(1)), the signed push certificate is stored in a blob and an environment variable GIT_PUSH_CERT can be consulted for its object name. See the description of post-receive hook for an example. In addition, the certificate is verified using GPG and the result is exported with the following environment variables: ... Stefan