Re: [PATCH v3] tag: add tag.gpgSign config option to force all tags be GPG-signed

From: Mkrtchyan, Tigran <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
Date: Jun 5, 2019, 20:50 UTC
Message-ID: <327924049.10494298.1559767809461.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqblzbsquq.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

Thanks for clarification. I will update the patch and re-send it.

Tigran.

----- Original Message -----

Show 6 quoted lines

> From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
> Cc: "git" <git@vger.kernel.org>, "Jonathan Nieder" <jrnieder@gmail.com>, "Johannes Schindelin"
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 10:46:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tag: add tag.gpgSign config option to force all tags be GPG-signed

Show 12 quoted lines

> "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de> writes:
> 
>>> But more importantly, I think we should justify why this "not
>>> allowed" makes sense as the design of the feature. A plausible
>>> alternative design would simply follow the "last one wins" paradigm,
>>> ...
>> This is matter of convention.
> 
> Oh, if you put it that way, it is quite clear that we should redo
> this part, as the rest of Git command line processing all pretty
> much follow "last one wins".  I was mostly curious if there was any
> strong reason why this combination has to be different.