From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:30:19 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] tag: add format specifier to gpg_verify_tag
Message-ID: <20170117153019.gujiruwghkwfklgv@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20170117152455.k6zkeclsyawzpl2n@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:24:55AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 01:47:01PM -0500, santiago@nyu.edu wrote:
> 
> > From: Lukas Puehringer <luk.puehringer@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Calling functions for gpg_verify_tag() may desire to print relevant
> > information about the header for further verification. Add an optional
> > format argument to print any desired information after GPG verification.
> 
> Hrm. Maybe I am missing something, but what does:
> 
>   verify_and_format_tag(sha1, name, fmt, flags);
> 
> get you over:
> 
>   gpg_verify_tag(sha1, name, flags);
>   pretty_print_ref(name, sha1, fmt);
> 
> ? The latter seems much more flexible, and I do not see how the
> verification step impacts the printing at all (or vice versa).
> 
> I could understand it more if there were patches later in the series
> that somehow used the format and verification results together. But I
> didn't see that.

Having read through the rest of the series, it looks like you'd
sometimes have to do:

  int ret;

  ret = gpg_verify_tag(sha1, name, flags);
  pretty_print_ref(name, sha1, fmt);
  if (ret)
      ... do something ...

and this function lets you do it in a single line.

Still, I think I'd rather see it done as a wrapper than modifying
gpg_verify_tag().

-Peff