Re: Proper plumbing for porcelain gpg formats on git show?
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jan 16, 2015, 19:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqk30m1p0t.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20150116192947.GD29365@google.com>
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
>> would there be interest in accepting a patch for >> >> %Gs - the raw GPG text from the commit >> %Gf - the key fingerprint > > There may be bikeshedding on the exact format specifier, but aside > from that I don't see why not. ;-)
I was about to say "As long as the execution is good, why not? Spawning an extra process 'gpg --list-packets' is not quite acceptable without properly being lazy is not acceptable".
But verify_signed_buffer() reads "gpg --status-fd=1 --verify" output, it is already done lazily in format_commit_one() only when the "%G?" placeholder is used, and the output we parse that are prefixed by [GNUPG:] should have enough information to grab the fingerprint from on the VALIDSIG line.
So I do not see a lot of room to screw-up the execution ;-).