From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/6] verify-commit: scriptable commit signature verification Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 07:50:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20140613115004.GF14066@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <48984553eb1d9ac53dd4b9604af568e22c735109.1402655839.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20140613111945.GC14066@sigill.intra.peff.net> <539AE476.4030205@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 13 13:50:16 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WvPzq-0006aU-B3 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:50:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750852AbaFMLuH (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2014 07:50:07 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:43415 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750817AbaFMLuG (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2014 07:50:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 23473 invoked by uid 102); 13 Jun 2014 11:50:06 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:50:06 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 13 Jun 2014 07:50:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <539AE476.4030205@drmicha.warpmail.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:45:58PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: > I sneekily fix this in 6/6... I thought 3/6 is on next already, too late > for a real v2. Otherwise I would put 6/6 before everything else. Ah, yeah, I assumed we were still re-rolling (and it looks like you're just on pu so far). > About the peeling I'm not so sure, since there's a difference between a > signed tag pointing to a commit and a signed commit. There is, but "verify-commit" is always going to verify the commit, no? Not peeling will always result in an error, and never do anything useful. I admit it's probably not going to come up too often, though. And I don't have any argument beyond "it makes sense to me", so I won't push for it further. -Peff