git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Santiago Torres <santiago@nyu.edu>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] tag: use pgp_verify_function in tag -v call
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 14:24:48 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160404182447.GA6773@LykOS> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160404133853.GB25404@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:38:54AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 12:12:04AM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote:
> 
> > > As a side note, it might actually be an improvement for pgp_verify_tag
> > > to take a sha1 (so that git-tag is sure that it is verifying the same
> > > object that it is printing), but that refactoring should probably come
> > > separately, I think.
> > 
> > Just to be sure, this refactoring is something we should still include
> > in this set of patches, right? I think that otherwise we'd lose the
> > desambigutaion that git tag -v does in this patch.
> 
> I think it can be part of this series, but doesn't have to be. As I
> understand it, the current code is just handing the name to the `git
> verify-tag` process, so if we continue to do so, that would be OK.

IIRC, the current code for git tag -v hands the hex-representation[1] of
the sha1 to git verify-tag --- I believe that's related to the
desamgibuation issue I've seen people discuss.  I think this behavior is
lost unless we add this on top of the patch.

> 
> > I also think that most of the rippling is gone if we use and adaptor as
> > you suggested. Should I add a patch on top of this to support a sha1 as
> > part for gpg_verify_tag()?
> 
> Yes, though I'd generally advise against a function taking either a name or
> a sha1, and ignoring the other option. That often leads to confusing
> interfaces for the callers. Instead, perhaps just take the sha1, and let
> the caller do the get_sha1() themselves. Or possibly provide two
> functions, one of which is a convenience to translate the name to sha1
> and then call the other.

I think the former sounds easier. I can replace the name argument and
move the sha1-resolution code to in verify-tag. git tag -v already
resolves the tagname to a sha1, so it is easier there.

Does this sound reasonable? 

Thanks!
-Santiago

[1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git/tree/builtin/tag.c#n109

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-04 18:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-02 23:16 [PATCH v3 0/4] tag: move PGP verification code to tag.c santiago
2016-04-02 23:16 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] builtin/verify-tag.c: Ignore SIGPIPE on gpg-interface santiago
2016-04-03  4:30   ` Jeff King
2016-04-03  6:50   ` Johannes Sixt
2016-04-03 21:46     ` Santiago Torres
2016-04-02 23:16 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] t/t7030-verify-tag.sh: Adds validation for multiple tags santiago
2016-04-03  4:40   ` Jeff King
2016-04-03  7:59     ` Eric Sunshine
2016-04-03 13:07       ` Jeff King
2016-04-03 21:58         ` Santiago Torres
2016-04-04  1:38           ` Eric Sunshine
2016-04-04 13:41             ` Jeff King
2016-04-02 23:16 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] builtin/verify-tag: move verification code to tag.c santiago
2016-04-03  4:45   ` Jeff King
2016-04-03  8:11     ` Eric Sunshine
2016-04-03  8:19   ` Eric Sunshine
2016-04-03 21:53     ` Santiago Torres
2016-04-02 23:16 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] tag: use pgp_verify_function in tag -v call santiago
2016-04-03  4:56   ` Jeff King
2016-04-03 21:43     ` Santiago Torres
2016-04-04  4:12     ` Santiago Torres
2016-04-04 13:38       ` Jeff King
2016-04-04 18:24         ` Santiago Torres [this message]
2016-04-04 20:19           ` Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160404182447.GA6773@LykOS \
    --to=santiago@nyu.edu \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).