Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/6] tag: read signature
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 22, 2009, 18:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vskm6xrm7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <e29894ca0902221006y4b0e29e7ucc8a04e8e6e42f4@mail.gmail.com>
Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com> writes:
Show 11 quoted lines
> diff --git a/tag.h b/tag.h
> index 7a0cb00..bc2cab3 100644
> --- a/tag.h
> +++ b/tag.h
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ struct tag {
> struct object object;
> struct object *tagged;
> char *tag;
> - char *signature; /* not actually implemented */
> + char *signature;
> };I do not speak for Daniel, but I think the original intent of "signature" is about the GnuPG signature, not the "tagger" field.
And this is not an objection. The use of GnuPG is accidental and at the low level of the object layer like this codepath we would not necessarily want to be married to it. Grabbing and parsing the tagger field like your patches 1/6 and 2/6 did would be more appropriate.
But then we would probably want to rename this field "tagger" (and then the timestamp field you add in the next patch "tagger_date").