From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:26:36 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Verify GPG signatures when merging and extend %G? pretty string Message-ID: <7vvc8et9dv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <515180FD.7090906@physik.tu-berlin.de> Sebastian Götte writes: > On 03/26/2013 02:46 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:> Sebastian Götte writes: >>> Rebased it onto the current 'master'. The second patch fixes that the GPG >>> status parser ignores the first line of GPG status output (that would be caught >>> by the new merge signature verification test case). >> >> Thanks. >> >> Does it still make sure that it won't be fooled by the expected >> string appearing in the middle of a line, not at the beginning? > > I thought that would not be a problem until I noticed it checks for GOODSIG > before it checks for BADSIG. Here is a fix. What does the order of checking have to do with it? I am confused... I was more worried about a case where you may end up misinterpreting [GNUPG:] BADSIG B0B5E88696AFE6CB [GNUPG:] GOODSIG B0B5E88696AFE6CB as showing goodsig when the signer's name was set to "[GNUPG:] GOODSIG B0B5E88696AFE6CB" The "\n" in the original was to make sure the expected message is at the beginning of a line.