Re: [PATCH 8/8] gpg-interface: handle alternative signature types

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Apr 17, 2018, 18:33 UTC
Message-ID: <20180417183334.GA9802@syl.local>
In-Reply-To: <CAE=pOyE5oqtPZLQ7d9EHU3uPC2eG+2_6APFirRvHqywE=4dGpg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:08:20PM -0600, Ben Toews wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> >
> >> If we just want to add gpgsm support, that's fine, but we should be
> >> transparent about that fact and try to avoid making an interface which
> >> is at once too generic and not generic enough.
>
> [...]
>
> My motivation with this series is not just to "add gpgsm support"
> though. I've been working on some other CMS tooling that will be open
> source eventually. My goal was to distribute this tool with a wrapper
> that emulates the GnuPG interface.
>
> To me, this series feels like a good stepping stone towards more
> generalized support for other tooling.

I agree with Ben's assessment. A stand-in tool for gpgsm support will not be useful without a way to configure it with Git. I think that treating this series as ``add support for _gpgsm-like tools_'' is sensible, and a reasonable compromise between:

  - More generalized support.
  - No support at all.

Thanks, Taylor