Re: [PATCH v2] Add the tag.gpgsign option to sign all created tags

From: Laurent Arnoud <laurent@spkdev.net>
Date: Mar 21, 2016, 19:29 UTC
Message-ID: <20160321192904.GC20083@spk-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7fgwnzuv.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:50:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> > The `tag.gpgsign` config option allows to sign all
> > commits automatically.
> 
> I presume that you meant "all annotated tags" here.  But I am not
> sure it this is sensible.

Yes its a mistake.

Show 9 quoted lines

> > Support `--no-sign` option to countermand configuration `tag.gpgsign`.
> So I do not see why you need a new --no-sign option at all.  If
> you have the configuration and you do want to create an unsigned
> annotated tag one-shot, all you need is to explicitly ask for "-a"
> i.e.
> 
>     $ git tag -a -m "my message" v1.0
> 
> isn't it?

You know that when you have sign configuration enabled globally annotate is implicite, so its difficult to join both world. I use same idea as in your patch `55ca3f99ae4895605a348322dd2fc50f2065f508`.

Show 6 quoted lines

> If you are forcing users to always leave a message and then further
> forcing users to always sign with the single new configuration, i.e.
> 
>     $ git tag v1.0
>     ... opens the editor to ask for a message ...
>     ... then makes the user sign with GPG ...

I'm not forcing this type of user to enable global configuration, that will be annoying for them of course. I tried to fix a need I have currently and this is a good compromise for me.

Show 29 quoted lines

> then I would first have to say that is a bad idea.
> 
> I can sort-of understand (but do not necessarily agree that it is a
> good idea) adding new two configurations, i.e.
> 
>  - "even without -a/-s, force the user to annotate the tag" is one
>    configuration, and
> 
>  - "even when the user did not say -s, force the user to sign an
>    annotated tag" is the other.
> 
> And with such a system, I can see why you would need an option
> "--lightweight" to force creation of a light-weight tag (i.e. to
> countermand the first one).  You can view this new option as
> something that sits next to existing -a/-s.  The current system lets
> user choose among the three variants (lightweight, annotated and
> signed) by not giving any, giving -a, and giving -s option
> respectively, but with the "--lightweight" option, the user can ask
> for one of the three explicitly, as opposed to using "lack of either
> -a/-s" as a signal to create lightweight one.
> 
> And in the context of such a system, "--no-sign" may make sense to
> override the second configuration (i.e. "force the user to sign an
> annotated tag").
> 
> But otherwise, adding only "--no-sign" does not make much sense to
> me, as it implies "not signing always means annotated", which is not
> true.  It is unclear between lightweight and annotated which one the
> user who says "--no-sign" really wants.

As I said it's difficult to easily join both world, as you know with configuration and command line options. This is an override and if its really a no go for this patch without refactoring this I will stop my work on it.

Just let me know I will send a patch v3 updated with tests after this.

Cheers,

-- 
Laurent