Re: [RFC PATCH] builtin:tag:verify_tag: allow gpg output + pretty

From: Santiago Torres Arias <santiago@nyu.edu>
Date: Apr 22, 2019, 15:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20190422154655.sxyrkee7rnywoh2w@LykOS.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20190422152726.GB1633@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Show 34 quoted lines

> However, I don't think this patch is quite right, as it causes us to
> dump the whole tag contents to stdout, as well. E.g.:
> 
>   [before]
>   $ git tag -v --format='foo %(tag)' v2.21.0
>   foo v2.21.0
> 
>   [after]
>   $ git tag -v --format='foo %(tag)' v2.21.0
>   object 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642
>   type commit
>   tag v2.21.0
>   tagger Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1551023739 -0800
>   
>   Git 2.21
>   gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 24 10:55:39 2019 EST
>   gpg:                using RSA key E1F036B1FEE7221FC778ECEFB0B5E88696AFE6CB
>   gpg: Good signature from "Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>" [full]
>   gpg:                 aka "Junio C Hamano <jch@google.com>" [full]
>   gpg:                 aka "Junio C Hamano <junio@pobox.com>" [full]
>   foo v2.21.0
> 
> I think "git verify-tag" would need similar treatment, too:
> 
>   $ git verify-tag v2.21.0
>   gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 24 10:55:39 2019 EST
>   gpg:                using RSA key E1F036B1FEE7221FC778ECEFB0B5E88696AFE6CB
>   gpg: Good signature from "Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>" [full]
>   gpg:                 aka "Junio C Hamano <jch@google.com>" [full]
>   gpg:                 aka "Junio C Hamano <junio@pobox.com>" [full]
> 
>   $ git verify-tag --format='foo %(tag)' v2.21.0
>   foo v2.21.0
>

Ah, let me look into these issues. I'm almost sure I also need to review the test suite and adapt it to this behavior.

Show 5 quoted lines

> In some ways I'm less concerned about verify-tag, though, because the
> point is that it should be scriptable. And scraping gpg's stderr is not
> ideal there. We should be parsing --status-fd ourselves and making the
> result available via format specifier, similar to the way "log
> --format=%G?" works.

I think that would be great, as we could make it simpler for verifiers to parse gpg output.

> So I think ultimately that's the direction we want to go, but I think
> in the meantime restoring the gpg output to stderr especially for the
> porcelain "git tag -v" makes sense for human eyes.

Great! let me re-roll and make a more formal take on this.

Thanks! -Santiago