Re: [PATCH 6/8] gpg-interface: find the last gpg signature line

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>> That test was fixed a week ago:
>>> https://github.com/git/git/commit/a99d903f21d102a5768f19157085a9733aeb68dd
>>
>> Well, you cannot expect any reviewer to know about a change that has
>> never been sent to the list and has never been part of even 'pu'
>> branch, no matter how old such a private "fix" is.
>>
>> What other unpublished things that are not even on 'pu' do these
>> patches depend on?
>
> Answering my own question after digging a bit more, now I know that
> a99d903 comes from the 'private' branch in peff/git/ repository
> hosted at GitHub [*1*].  The branch builds on 'next' by merging many
> private branches, and 'jk/non-pgp-signatures' branch has that commit.
>
>     peff.git/private$ git log --oneline --boundary 0c8726318..7a526834e^2
>     c9ce7c5b7 gpg-interface: handle multiple signing tools
>     914951682 gpg-interface: handle bool user.signingkey
>     1f2ea84b3 gpg-interface: return signature type from parse_signature()
>     6d2ce6547 gpg-interface: prepare for parsing arbitrary PEM blocks
>     fb1d173db gpg-interface: find the last gpg signature line
>     6bc4e7e17 gpg-interface: extract gpg line matching helper
>     4f883ac49 gpg-interface: fix const-correctness of "eol" pointer
>     ae6529fdb gpg-interface: use size_t for signature buffer size
>     1bca4296b gpg-interface: modernize function declarations
>     a99d903f2 t7004: fix mistaken tag name
>     - 468165c1d Git 2.17
>
> It seems to me that Peff did the t7004 change as the earliest
> preliminary step of the series, but it caused confusion when it was
> not sent as part of the series by mistake.  Judging from the shape
> of the topic, I do not think this topic has any other hidden
> dependencies as it builds directly on top of v2.17.0.
>
> For those who are reading and reviewing from the sideline, I've
> attached that missing 0.9/8 patch at the end of this message.

>
> [Footnote]
>
> *1* I do not know if it deserves to be called a bug, but it
>     certainly is an anomaly GitHub exhibits that a99d903f can be
>     viewed at https://github.com/git/git/commit/a99d903f..., as if
>     it is part of the official git/git history, when it only exists
>     in a fork of that repository.  I can understand why it happens
>     but it certainly is unexpected.
>
> -- >8 --
> From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:10:30 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 0.9/8] t7004: fix mistaken tag name
>
> We have a series of tests which create signed tags with
> various properties, but one test accidentally verifies a tag
> from much earlier in the series.
> ---
>  t/t7004-tag.sh | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t7004-tag.sh b/t/t7004-tag.sh
> index 2aac77af7..ee093b393 100755
> --- a/t/t7004-tag.sh
> +++ b/t/t7004-tag.sh
> @@ -1056,7 +1056,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG \
>         git tag -s -F sigblanknonlfile blanknonlfile-signed-tag &&
>         get_tag_msg blanknonlfile-signed-tag >actual &&
>         test_cmp expect actual &&
> -       git tag -v signed-tag
> +       git tag -v blanknonlfile-signed-tag
>  '
>
>  # messages with commented lines for signed tags:
> --
> 2.17.0-140-g0b0cc9f867
>