Re: [PATCH 0/7] Flags and config to sign pushes by default

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2015, 17:21 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqtwrxesqa.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD0k6qR2HkHHYu8429mvdvN1bkLeTpD-5EbO4Mt+o69rC+P6aQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com> writes:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Ok, so let us bikeshed a bit further.
>
> Bikeshed 1.
> Option A: --signed/--no-signed--signed-if-possible
> Option B: --signed=true|false|if-possible, "--signed" alone implies "=true".
>
> Bikeshed 2.
>
> Option A: if-possible
>
> The possibly confusing thing is one might interpret missing "gpg" to
> mean "impossible", i.e. "if gpg is not installed don't attempt to
> sign", which is not the behavior we want.
>
> I don't have another succinct way of saying this.
> "if-server-supported" is a mouthful. I think Jonathan mentioned
> "opportunistic", which is fairly opaque.
>
>> By "strange", I was referring to the possible perception issue on
>> having a choice other than yes/no for a configuration that allows
>> you to express your security preference.

My preference on Bikeshed 1. would probably be to add

    --sign=yes/no/if-asked

and to keep --[no-]signed for "no" and "yes" for existing users.

Regarding Bikeshed 2., I do not have a strong opinion myself.

Thanks.