From: Marc-André Lureau Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:25:21 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/6] tag: read signature Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vskm6xrm7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Hi On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Marc-André Lureau writes: > >> 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"). > Yes, I though the same. But when I saw the way it was parsed before (the value of sig_line), I was not sure about naming. I agree it would be better to name it "tagger". regards, -- Marc-André Lureau Sent from: Helsinki Southern Finland Finland.