From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/6] tag: read signature Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:18:24 -0800 Message-ID: <7vskm6xrm7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 22 19:20:04 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LbIvo-000828-UL for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:20:01 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751767AbZBVSSc convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:18:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751765AbZBVSSb (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:18:31 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:41818 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751586AbZBVSSa convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:18:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900049CF70; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AC359CF6F; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:18:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau's message of "Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:06:37 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 348EBC24-010D-11DE-95AC-B26E209B64D9-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau writes: > diff --git a/tag.h b/tag.h > index 7a0cb00..bc2cab3 100644 > --- a/tag.h > +++ b/tag.h > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ struct tag { > struct object object; > struct object *tagged; > char *tag; > - char *signature; /* not actually implemented */ > + char *signature; > }; I do not speak for Daniel, but I think the original intent of "signatur= e" is about the GnuPG signature, not the "tagger" field. And this is not an objection. The use of GnuPG is accidental and at th= e low level of the object layer like this codepath we would not necessari= ly want to be married to it. Grabbing and parsing the tagger field like y= our patches 1/6 and 2/6 did would be more appropriate. But then we would probably want to rename this field "tagger" (and then the timestamp field you add in the next patch "tagger_date").