{"thread":{"id":"42289","subject":"[PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification v2","startedAt":"2016-05-12T06:50:22Z","lastAt":"2016-05-13T09:37:02Z","messageCount":6,"participants":["Fox in the shell","Pranit Bauva","Junio C Hamano","KellerFuchs"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"286317","messageId":"20160512065022.GA32387@hashbang.sh","threadId":"42289","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification v2","fromName":"Fox in the shell","fromEmail":"kellerfuchs@hashbang.sh","sentAt":"2016-05-12T06:50:22Z","receivedAt":"2016-05-12T06:50:22Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"kellerfuchs@hashbang.sh","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14331571?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nHere is a second attempt at this patch.\nSorry for the delay, life somewhat got in the way.\n\n--\nClarify which commits need to be signed.\n\nUniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP:\n- a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;\n- in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a trusted key;\n- a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.\n\nThanks to Junio C Hamano for reviewing\n the first attempt at this patch.\n---\n Documentation/merge-options.txt | 7 +++++--\n Documentation/pretty-formats.txt | 4 ++--\n 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/merge-options.txt b/Documentation/merge-options.txt\nindex f08e9b8..30808a0 100644\n--- a/Documentation/merge-options.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/merge-options.txt\n@@ -89,8 +89,11 @@ option can be used to override --squash.\n \n --verify-signatures::\n --no-verify-signatures::\n-\tVerify that the commits being merged have good and trusted GPG signatures\n-\tand abort the merge in case they do not.\n+\tVerify that the tip commit of the side branch being merged is\n+\tsigned with a valid key, i.e. a key that has a valid uid: in the\n+\tdefault trust model, this means the signing key has been signed by\n+\ta trusted key. If the tip commit of the side branch is not signed\n+\twith a valid key, the merge is aborted.\n \n --summary::\n --no-summary::\ndiff --git a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\nindex 671cebd..29b19b9 100644\n--- a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\n@@ -143,8 +143,8 @@ ifndef::git-rev-list[]\n - '%N': commit notes\n endif::git-rev-list[]\n - '%GG': raw verification message from GPG for a signed commit\n-- '%G?': show \"G\" for a Good signature, \"B\" for a Bad signature, \"U\" for a good,\n- untrusted signature and \"N\" for no signature\n+- '%G?': show \"G\" for a good (valid) signature, \"B\" for a bad signature,\n+ \"U\" for a good signature with unknown validity and \"N\" for no signature\n - '%GS': show the name of the signer for a signed commit\n - '%GK': show the key used to sign a signed commit\n - '%gD': reflog selector, e.g., `refs/stash@{1}`\n-- \n2.1.4\n"},{"id":"286323","messageId":"CAFZEwPOJg=njvhtK7ZQf_-3DUVjMpFBEV_0m1NHAE1UL7eM5ng@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"42289","inReplyTo":"20160512065022.GA32387@hashbang.sh","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification v2","fromName":"Pranit Bauva","fromEmail":"pranit.bauva@gmail.com","sentAt":"2016-05-12T08:04:36Z","receivedAt":"2016-05-12T08:04:36Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"pranit.bauva@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2959938?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Fox in the shell\n wrote:\n>\n> Hi,\n>\n> Here is a second attempt at this patch.\n> Sorry for the delay, life somewhat got in the way.\n>\n\nIts okay! We understand that things might take a little more time than expected!\n\n> --\n> Clarify which commits need to be signed.\n>\n> Uniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP:\n> - a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;\n> - in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a trusted key;\n> - a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.\n>\n> Thanks to Junio C Hamano for reviewing\n> the first attempt at this patch.\n> ---\n\nIts good to provide links to the previous version[1] of the patch.\nPlease go through the Documentation/SubmittingPatches once.\nSeems like Junio was waiting for someone to point this out[2].\n\nA couple of notes of how to submit the patches:\n * You have cc'ied the reviewers. Good!\n\n * Include the version no (v2) inside the [PATCH] like [PATCH v2]\n\n * The next version should be as a reply to the previous one.\n Hint: use --in-reply-to with git-send-email\n\n * git-am is used to pick up these patches and it gets the subject\n of the email and strips of [PATCH ...] and then uses the other stuff\n in the commit message headline.\n\n * The rest of the commit message are the words before ---.\n So currently git-am will pick up your paragraph as commit message:\n\n \"Hi,\n\n Here is a second attempt at this patch.\n Sorry for the delay, life somewhat got in the way.\"\n\n which is quite undesirable as a commit message.\n\n * Comments are put after ---. So your paragraph\n \"Clarify which commits need to be signed.\n\n Uniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP\n - a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;\n - in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a\ntrusted key;\n - a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.\n\n Thanks to Junio C Hamano for reviewing\n the first attempt at this patch.\"\n\n is actually treated as a comment.\n\n * Also your signoff is missing.\n\n * If you want to credit someone then its better to use syntax like:\n \"Helped-by: Junio C Hamano \"\n\n * It also seems like you probably wanted to add the\n \"Reviewed-by:\" tag. Please note only the reviewers can\n add that tag.\n\n> Documentation/merge-options.txt | 7 +++++--\n> Documentation/pretty-formats.txt | 4 ++--\n> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)\n>\n> diff --git a/Documentation/merge-options.txt b/Documentation/merge-options.txt\n> index f08e9b8..30808a0 100644\n> --- a/Documentation/merge-options.txt\n> +++ b/Documentation/merge-options.txt\n> @@ -89,8 +89,11 @@ option can be used to override --squash.\n>\n> --verify-signatures::\n> --no-verify-signatures::\n> - Verify that the commits being merged have good and trusted GPG signatures\n> - and abort the merge in case they do not.\n> + Verify that the tip commit of the side branch being merged is\n> + signed with a valid key, i.e. a key that has a valid uid: in the\n> + default trust model, this means the signing key has been signed by\n> + a trusted key. If the tip commit of the side branch is not signed\n> + with a valid key, the merge is aborted.\n>\n> --summary::\n> --no-summary::\n> diff --git a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\n> index 671cebd..29b19b9 100644\n> --- a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\n> +++ b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\n> @@ -143,8 +143,8 @@ ifndef::git-rev-list[]\n> - '%N': commit notes\n> endif::git-rev-list[]\n> - '%GG': raw verification message from GPG for a signed commit\n> -- '%G?': show \"G\" for a Good signature, \"B\" for a Bad signature, \"U\" for a good,\n> - untrusted signature and \"N\" for no signature\n> +- '%G?': show \"G\" for a good (valid) signature, \"B\" for a bad signature,\n> + \"U\" for a good signature with unknown validity and \"N\" for no signature\n> - '%GS': show the name of the signer for a signed commit\n> - '%GK': show the key used to sign a signed commit\n> - '%gD': reflog selector, e.g., `refs/stash@{1}`\n> --\n> 2.1.4\n\n[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/291123\n[2]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/291185\n"},{"id":"286324","messageId":"CAFZEwPM27g-FZBa6ggJKmYvjAfp=YWnC90j73dpgpkjJC=F3Nw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"42289","inReplyTo":"CAFZEwPOJg=njvhtK7ZQf_-3DUVjMpFBEV_0m1NHAE1UL7eM5ng@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification v2","fromName":"Pranit Bauva","fromEmail":"pranit.bauva@gmail.com","sentAt":"2016-05-12T08:08:17Z","receivedAt":"2016-05-12T08:08:17Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"pranit.bauva@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2959938?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote:\n> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Fox in the shell\n> wrote:\n>>\n>> Hi,\n>>\n>> Here is a second attempt at this patch.\n>> Sorry for the delay, life somewhat got in the way.\n>>\n>\n> Its okay! We understand that things might take a little more time than expected!\n>\n>> --\n>> Clarify which commits need to be signed.\n>>\n>> Uniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP:\n>> - a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;\n>> - in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a trusted key;\n>> - a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.\n>>\n>> Thanks to Junio C Hamano for reviewing\n>> the first attempt at this patch.\n>> ---\n>\n> Its good to provide links to the previous version[1] of the patch.\n> Please go through the Documentation/SubmittingPatches once.\n> Seems like Junio was waiting for someone to point this out[2].\n>\n> A couple of notes of how to submit the patches:\n> * You have cc'ied the reviewers. Good!\n>\n> * Include the version no (v2) inside the [PATCH] like [PATCH v2]\n>\n> * The next version should be as a reply to the previous one.\n> Hint: use --in-reply-to with git-send-email\n>\n> * git-am is used to pick up these patches and it gets the subject\n> of the email and strips of [PATCH ...] and then uses the other stuff\n> in the commit message headline.\n>\n> * The rest of the commit message are the words before ---.\n> So currently git-am will pick up your paragraph as commit message:\n>\n> \"Hi,\n>\n> Here is a second attempt at this patch.\n> Sorry for the delay, life somewhat got in the way.\"\n>\n> which is quite undesirable as a commit message.\n>\n> * Comments are put after ---. So your paragraph\n> \"Clarify which commits need to be signed.\n>\n> Uniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP\n> - a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;\n> - in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a\n> trusted key;\n> - a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.\n>\n> Thanks to Junio C Hamano for reviewing\n> the first attempt at this patch.\"\n>\n> is actually treated as a comment.\n>\n> * Also your signoff is missing.\n>\n> * If you want to credit someone then its better to use syntax like:\n> \"Helped-by: Junio C Hamano \"\n>\n> * It also seems like you probably wanted to add the\n> \"Reviewed-by:\" tag. Please note only the reviewers can\n> add that tag.\n>\n>> Documentation/merge-options.txt | 7 +++++--\n>> Documentation/pretty-formats.txt | 4 ++--\n>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)\n>>\n>> diff --git a/Documentation/merge-options.txt b/Documentation/merge-options.txt\n>> index f08e9b8..30808a0 100644\n>> --- a/Documentation/merge-options.txt\n>> +++ b/Documentation/merge-options.txt\n>> @@ -89,8 +89,11 @@ option can be used to override --squash.\n>>\n>> --verify-signatures::\n>> --no-verify-signatures::\n>> - Verify that the commits being merged have good and trusted GPG signatures\n>> - and abort the merge in case they do not.\n>> + Verify that the tip commit of the side branch being merged is\n>> + signed with a valid key, i.e. a key that has a valid uid: in the\n>> + default trust model, this means the signing key has been signed by\n>> + a trusted key. If the tip commit of the side branch is not signed\n>> + with a valid key, the merge is aborted.\n>>\n>> --summary::\n>> --no-summary::\n>> diff --git a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\n>> index 671cebd..29b19b9 100644\n>> --- a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\n>> +++ b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt\n>> @@ -143,8 +143,8 @@ ifndef::git-rev-list[]\n>> - '%N': commit notes\n>> endif::git-rev-list[]\n>> - '%GG': raw verification message from GPG for a signed commit\n>> -- '%G?': show \"G\" for a Good signature, \"B\" for a Bad signature, \"U\" for a good,\n>> - untrusted signature and \"N\" for no signature\n>> +- '%G?': show \"G\" for a good (valid) signature, \"B\" for a bad signature,\n>> + \"U\" for a good signature with unknown validity and \"N\" for no signature\n>> - '%GS': show the name of the signer for a signed commit\n>> - '%GK': show the key used to sign a signed commit\n>> - '%gD': reflog selector, e.g., `refs/stash@{1}`\n>> --\n>> 2.1.4\n>\n> [1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/291123\n> [2]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/291185\n\nForgot to mention. It would be preferable to use your real name in the signoff.\n"},{"id":"286340","messageId":"xmqq4ma3grj0.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","threadId":"42289","inReplyTo":"CAFZEwPOJg=njvhtK7ZQf_-3DUVjMpFBEV_0m1NHAE1UL7eM5ng@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification v2","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2016-05-12T16:38:59Z","receivedAt":"2016-05-12T16:38:59Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Pranit Bauva writes:\n\n> Seems like Junio was waiting for someone to point this out[2].\n\nThanks. I think you covered most of them correctly; I only have one\nthing to add.\n\n> * Comments are put after ---. So your paragraph\n> \"Clarify which commits need to be signed.\n>\n> Uniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP\n> - a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;\n> - in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a\n> trusted key;\n> - a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.\n>\n> Thanks to Junio C Hamano for reviewing\n> the first attempt at this patch.\"\n>\n> is actually treated as a comment.\n\nThis is half-true, I think. The message you are responding to had\nonly two dashes, not three.\n\nThe usual way to do what the original wanted to do is like this:\n\n\t... e-mail headers like From:, Subject:, ...\n\n\tHi,\n\n Here is a second attempt.\n\n -- >8 --\n Subject: Documentation: clarify --verify signature\n\n\tClarify that only the signature of the commit at the tip of\n\tthe branch being merged is checked. Also align the\n\tvocabulary to describe key & signature validity with those\n\tused by OpenPGP, namely:\n\n - a signature is valid if ...\n ...\n - a key is trusted if ...\n\n\tSigned-off-by: A U Thor \n ---\n Documentation/merge-options.txt | ... diffstat comes here\n \nNotice the \"-- >8 --\" (cut here) line. \"am\" will notice it, discard\nwhat it has read so far and restart from there.\n"},{"id":"286343","messageId":"CAFZEwPOgQcyuVjrWsxgz+vTe+0qEbBPo3YSdKpGc0Zb6YB7tAw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"42289","inReplyTo":"xmqq4ma3grj0.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification v2","fromName":"Pranit Bauva","fromEmail":"pranit.bauva@gmail.com","sentAt":"2016-05-12T17:32:59Z","receivedAt":"2016-05-12T17:32:59Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"pranit.bauva@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2959938?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Pranit Bauva writes:\n>\n>> Seems like Junio was waiting for someone to point this out[2].\n>\n> Thanks. I think you covered most of them correctly; I only have one\n> thing to add.\n>\n>> * Comments are put after ---. So your paragraph\n>> \"Clarify which commits need to be signed.\n>>\n>> Uniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP\n>> - a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;\n>> - in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a\n>> trusted key;\n>> - a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.\n>>\n>> Thanks to Junio C Hamano for reviewing\n>> the first attempt at this patch.\"\n>>\n>> is actually treated as a comment.\n>\n> This is half-true, I think. The message you are responding to had\n> only two dashes, not three.\n\nMy bad. Didn't carefully notice it.\n\n>\n> The usual way to do what the original wanted to do is like this:\n>\n> ... e-mail headers like From:, Subject:, ...\n>\n> Hi,\n>\n> Here is a second attempt.\n>\n> -- >8 --\n> Subject: Documentation: clarify --verify signature\n>\n> Clarify that only the signature of the commit at the tip of\n> the branch being merged is checked. Also align the\n> vocabulary to describe key & signature validity with those\n> used by OpenPGP, namely:\n>\n> - a signature is valid if ...\n> ...\n> - a key is trusted if ...\n>\n> Signed-off-by: A U Thor \n> ---\n> Documentation/merge-options.txt | ... diffstat comes here\n>\n> Notice the \"-- >8 --\" (cut here) line. \"am\" will notice it, discard\n> what it has read so far and restart from there.\n\nNot having used this personally, I forgot to mention this. Thanks for\nmentioning it!\nLooks like you have written the commit message for him. :)\n"},{"id":"286439","messageId":"20160513093702.GA23963@hashbang.sh","threadId":"42289","inReplyTo":"xmqq4ma3grj0.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification v2","fromName":"KellerFuchs","fromEmail":"kellerfuchs@hashbang.sh","sentAt":"2016-05-13T09:37:02Z","receivedAt":"2016-05-13T09:37:02Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"kellerfuchs@hashbang.sh","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14331571?v=4"},"body":"Thanks a lot for the feedback.\n\nI read Documentation/SubmittingPatches before sending the original patch,\n but it seems not everything had sunk in.\n (And I definitely should have read it again before sending v2...)\n\n\nI will resubmit the patch, then.\n\nOn Thu, May 12, 2016 at 09:38:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Pranit Bauva writes:\n> \n> > Seems like Junio was waiting for someone to point this out[2].\n> \n> Thanks. I think you covered most of them correctly; I only have one\n> thing to add.\n> \n> > * Comments are put after ---. So your paragraph\n> > \"Clarify which commits need to be signed.\n> >\n> > Uniformise the vocabulary used wrt. key/signature validity with OpenPGP\n> > - a signature is valid if made by a key with a valid uid;\n> > - in the default trust-model, a uid is valid if signed by a\n> > trusted key;\n> > - a key is trusted if the (local) user set a trust level for it.\n> >\n> > Thanks to Junio C Hamano for reviewing\n> > the first attempt at this patch.\"\n> >\n> > is actually treated as a comment.\n> \n> This is half-true, I think. The message you are responding to had\n> only two dashes, not three.\n> \n> The usual way to do what the original wanted to do is like this:\n> \n> \t... e-mail headers like From:, Subject:, ...\n> \n> \tHi,\n> \n> Here is a second attempt.\n> \n> -- >8 --\n> Subject: Documentation: clarify --verify signature\n> \n> \tClarify that only the signature of the commit at the tip of\n> \tthe branch being merged is checked. Also align the\n> \tvocabulary to describe key & signature validity with those\n> \tused by OpenPGP, namely:\n> \n> - a signature is valid if ...\n> ...\n> - a key is trusted if ...\n> \n> \tSigned-off-by: A U Thor \n> ---\n> Documentation/merge-options.txt | ... diffstat comes here\n> \n> Notice the \"-- >8 --\" (cut here) line. \"am\" will notice it, discard\n> what it has read so far and restart from there.\n> \n"}]}