Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/6] tag: read signature

["Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com>]

Hi

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com> 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 "signature"
> is about the GnuPG signature, not the "tagger" field.
>
> And this is not an objection.  The use of GnuPG is accidental and at the
> low level of the object layer like this codepath we would not necessarily
> want to be married to it.  Grabbing and parsing the tagger field like your
> 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").
>

Yes, I though the same. But when I saw the way it was parsed before
(the value of sig_line), I was not sure about naming.
I agree it would be better to name it "tagger".

regards,

-- 
Marc-André Lureau
Sent from: Helsinki Southern Finland Finland.