Re: Signed commit regression?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 28, 2020, 17:17 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqpndyeim1.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whg3uip_N1EjLEzaZNMvS8v+5u2GGueE9Wm2xnY87D+-A@mail.gmail.com>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:44 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect it's due to this commit:
>>
>>   72b006f4bf ("gpg-interface: prefer check_signature() for GPG verification")
>>
>> but as mentioned I don't have the ability to really dig deeper right now.
>
> Never mind - I did a mindless "just revert that and test", and it
> indeed is that commit.
>
> Please revert it in upstream git. The "No signature" message really is
> horribly wrong. It's both technically entirely wrong, but it's wrong
> from a UI standpoint too since you really need to show what the
> missing key was.

True---the messages that told you the missing piece of information with the original code came directly from gnupg, and the problematic change stopped showing that and replaced it with the generic (and wrong) "We tried to verify signature and it failed---it must be that the input did not have signature" message.

It is in v2.25 already, so we'd need to revert it out of 'maint'; it seems to have a minimum fallout on a topic in flight, but it looks manageable.

Thanks.