From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:26:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] gpg-interface t: extend the existing GPG tests with GPGSM
Message-ID: <xmqqa7qx4u2k.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180711143554.GG23835@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

>> While addressing 1 make 2 obvious and worse, addressing 2 is a whole
>> different story and should probably be discussed outside of this
>> thread. And i would not like to inherit responsibility for 2. In
>> fact the whole discussion emphasizes that it was a good idea to make
>> GPGSM depend on GPG, because it allows to somewhat reuse existing tests.
>
> IMHO there is a big difference between inheriting responsibility for
> something, and not making it worse.

Well said.