Re: Git SSH/GPG signing flags and config

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2021, 23:20 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzgpn50l6.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20211128125704.4twinfd3wriwdntz@fs>

Fabian Stelzer <fs@gigacodes.de> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Hi everyone,
> the `signing git objects with ssh` series was released with 2.34 and
> i'd like to thank everyone for your support and the good reviews!
> I think it would be beneficial now to adjust some of the wording in
> flags and the config. Currently everything is configured via gpg.* and
> all the `please sign this` flags are named --(no-?)gpg-sign.
> I would be in favor of a more generic flag independent of the signing
> mechanism. Adding something like `--ssh-sign` would suggest that you'd
> be able to switch signing format with it which i think would not be
> terribly useful. If you need to use multiple signing mechanism those
> would usually be configured per repository and can easily be done with
> an `includeif gitdir:` in your config.
> Therefore i would suggest just adding a generic `--(no-?)sign` to all
> the commands that support gpg-sign right now. The only problem i see
> is a conflict with `--signoff` so i'm open to other naming ideas. The
> same goes for the config. `sign.` as an alias to `gpg.` would work
> well with the current settings.
> Let me know what you think and i could prepare a first patch for one
> command to see what the alias / config / docs change could look like.

I do share your worry about --sign to be confused with the sign-off procedure, and that was why the original used --gpg-sign. We are extending "gpg" part because "gpg" is not the only cryptographic signing protocol we support, so perhaps --crypto-sign would still be in the orginal spirit of "This is different from the sign-off, but is a cryptographic signature, but it is a mouthful.