Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > Of course I agree that it would be very nice to have a test at a later
> > stage that does exercise GPG if it is available. But would it really
> > be so terrible to have a (simpler, not as complete) test that is
> > exercised *also* when GPG is *not* available?
> 
> What I would expect is "In the ideal world, we may want both, and in an
> imperfect world in which we can have only one, we'd rather have the
> 'even though we can run it only when GPG is available, we make sure that
> we drive GPG correctly' one, dropping the other.", simply because the
> end result matters more, not how the instruction to the end user is
> phrased.
> 
> Sure, in even less perfect world, having a superficial test might be
> better than nothing, but reminding ourselves to aim high (and make sure
> we document the decision when we punt) is an important part of the
> purpose of the review process, so...

Okay, so here is the deal: on the development machine where this was
developed, I do not have gpg installed. So please take this test case just
to make sure that things work as intended for the moment.

Before sending the last rebase--helper patch series, I will make sure to
add a real test that requires gpg, and submit that, too.

Deal?

Ciao,
Dscho