From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:22:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Raw gpg output support for verify-commit and verify-tag
Message-ID: <557E8B4C.3030604@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd20ym1b0.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 14.06.2015 23:23:
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> 
>> Currently, verify-commit and verify-tag produce human-readable output.
>> This is great for humans, and awful for machines.  It also lacks a lot
>> of the information that GnuPG's --status-fd output provides.
>>
>> For example, if you wanted to know
>> * the hash algorithm;
>> * whether the signature was made with a subkey; or
>> * the OpenPGP signature version
>> none of that information is available in the human-readable output.
> 
> What this series wants to achieve makes a lot of sense to me.  One
> comment I have after skimming the patfches is that I want the new
> "raw" bit added not as a yet another parameter after "verbose", but
> by turning the existing "verbose" into an "unsigned flag" flag word
> (with "#define GPG_VERIFY_VERBOSE 01") and then defining use of a
> new bit in the same flag word "#define GPG_VERIFY_RAW 01" or
> something.  That way, over time other people add differnt things to
> the interface, we would not have to end up with 47 different
> parameters each of which signals a single bit.
> 
> Thanks.

Back then the idea was to have verify-commit available *yesterday*
(before any refactoring) since we needed a way to verify the new commit
signatures programmatically.

Maybe now would be a good time to do the refactoring between verify-tag
and verify-commit that is still missing, and to add new features then
(unless they are pressing matters or fixes).

BTW: verify-tag and verify-commit should treat untrusted good signatures
in exactly the same way. Anything else is an error that needs to be fixed.

Michael