Re: [PATCH v4] fast-(import|export): improve on commit signature output format

[Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 9:20 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>
> tldr; 2 brief requests.  Please
>
>  - Be gentle to people and expect that it is normal for them to be
>    off of the list for a few weeks (or even more), not able to give
>    a timely comments;
>
>  - Fully stand behind your own patch (unless it is an RFC), even if
>    some of the idea came from elsewhere.

Ok I will keep these in mind.

> >> Why would it need to say what type of signature it is?  Don't the
> >> ascii armor lines have e.g. "----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----" and "----END
> >> PGP SIGNATURE----" around it, which fast-import can read as well as
> >> fast-export?  Is the idea that we strip those lines and now need to
> >> replace the information we lost?
> >
> > In https://lore.kernel.org/git/aAq1nvcPRlIPal5l@tapette.crustytoothpaste.net/
> > brian said:
> >
> > "These should be separate fields: one for the hash algorithm and one for
> > the protocol.  Alternatively, we can just keep the hash algorithm field
> > and parse the protocol by reading the first line, which will differ for
> > different protocols."
> >
> > It would have been nice if you had then said that you prefer not to
> > have the protocol.
>
> Let's remember to be gentle for those who give varluable feedbacks
> but may not be always on this list.  A late comment on a topic that
> has not hit 'next' is much better than a late comment after the
> topic hits 'next', or no comment at all.

I agree that the comment was valuable, sorry if it appeared otherwise.

> Also, even if the idea came from somebody else, if you agreed to the
> idea and made it part of your submission, then it would be better to
> explain it in your own words, in the most appropriate way to answer
> the question asked (e.g. the original from Brian and the question by
> Elijah may have stress on different aspect of the problem).
>
> > My opinion was that it was better for tools processing fast-export
> > output to have the protocol as they have to parse the "gppsig ..."
> > line anyway. So it should be easier for them than to parse the ascii
> > armor lines.
>
> And if you do not agree with Brian's, perhaps discuss a bit more to
> (1) either convince yourself that Brian's idea is better and rewrite
> your code to adopt the idea, or (2) explain the reason why your "the
> importer reads and parses anyway" is better design and stick to it.

I actually agreed with brian about "These should be separate fields:
one for the hash algorithm and one for the protocol." Anyway it seems
that we all agree now on this.