Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] merge/pull Check for untrusted good GPG signatures
- From
Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
- Date
- Mar 31, 2013, 15:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87ip47wpvn.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <51585491.1070604@physik.tu-berlin.de>
Sebastian Götte <jaseg@physik.tu-berlin.de> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> On 03/31/2013 05:03 PM, Thomas Rast wrote:
>>>> } sigcheck_gpg_status[] = {
>>>> { 'G', "[GNUPG:] GOODSIG " },
>>>> { 'B', "[GNUPG:] BADSIG " },
>>>> + { 'U', "[GNUPG:] TRUST_NEVER" },
>>>> + { 'U', "[GNUPG:] TRUST_UNDEFINED" },[...]
Show 5 quoted lines
>> And furthermore, to use an enum instead of a char so that you can easily >> spell out the details in the code? This also has the advantage that the >> compiler can check that your 'switch'es cover all cases. > This char is actually from Junios original code. I think we can afford > three chars. This could be changed if we ever need more than that.
*shrug*
I'm tempted to count the above as an argument in favor of the enum, since there are in fact *four* chars... 'N' also counts. ;-)
But either way... I don't care too deeply and I don't know this corner of the code. I just came here because of the valgrind discovery.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch