Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Using monotone in a team

[Timothy Brownawell]

On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 11:32 -0500, address@hidden wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:24:27AM -0600, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 17:06 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Carosone <address@hidden> writes:
> > > 
> > >     Daniel> Again, it's not about permissions to change things, it's
> > >     Daniel> about whether your trust (ie, how you pay attention to)
> > >     Daniel> what they do.
> > > 
> > >     Daniel> In this context, this means that everyone accepts changes
> > >     Daniel> in the junior branch from junior and denior developers,
> > >     Daniel> and in the main branch only from the senior developers.
> > >     Daniel> More specifically, that I only trust main-branch certs
> > >     Daniel> signed by senior developers.
> > > 
> > >     Daniel> From time to time, a senior developer looks at revs in the
> > >     Daniel> junior branch.
> > > 
> > > What happens if a trusted developer's key becomes compromised
> > > (e.g. laptop stolen) or the developer becomes untrustworthy
> > > (e.g. fired)?
> > > 
> > > Can you somehow say that old signatures are still valid, but new ones
> > > aren't?
> > 
> > Define "new" (monotone has no concept of time).
> 
> Except for a partial order of revisions after other revisions.  You 
> could still give a list of recent valid revisions and let the partial 
> order fend a lot of older revisions whose certs would also be valid.

But certs can be added to revisions at any time. So even if a revision
is known to have been committed before the key was revoked, it's
entirely possible that some certs attached to it could have been added
after the key was revoked.

-- 
Timothy

Free (experimental) public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net