From: Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 11:18:42 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2021, #05; Fri, 19)
Message-ID: <20211120111842.mrryee6kvffhpegs@fs>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa6hznvz1.fsf@gitster.g>

On 19.11.2021 23:10, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>* fs/ssh-signing-other-keytypes (2021-11-19) 2 commits
> - ssh signing: make sign/amend test more resilient
> - ssh signing: support non ssh-* keytypes
>
>
>* fs/ssh-signing-key-lifetime (2021-11-18) 10 commits
> - ssh signing: verify ssh-keygen in test prereq
> - ssh signing: make fmt-merge-msg consider key lifetime
> - ssh signing: make verify-tag consider key lifetime
> - ssh signing: make git log verify key lifetime
> - ssh signing: make verify-commit consider key lifetime
> - ssh signing: add key lifetime test prereqs
> - ssh signing: use sigc struct to pass payload
> - Merge branch 'ad/ssh-signing-testfix' into fs/ssh-signing-key-lifetime
> - Merge branch 'fs/ssh-signing-fix' into fs/ssh-signing-key-lifetime
> - Merge branch 'fs/ssh-signing' into fs/ssh-signing-key-lifetime
>
> Extend the signing of objects with SSH keys and learn to pay
> attention to the key validity time range when verifying.
>
> Will merge to 'next'?
>

I have some cleanup / code style changes for the ssh siginig test prereq
code like you suggested in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfsrssmar.fsf@gitster.g/ that would
conflict between these two series. Depending on which lands first or if
the keytpye fix goes into `maint` I could apply it to either one and
rebase the other. Or since it's just style changes I can attach it to
some future ssh signing series. I don't mind either way. Otherwise I
think this is ready for `next`.