Re: [RFC PATCH] builtin:tag:verify_tag: allow gpg output + pretty

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:07:01PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:02:11PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:46:56AM -0400, Santiago Torres Arias wrote:
> > 
> > > > In some ways I'm less concerned about verify-tag, though, because the
> > > > point is that it should be scriptable. And scraping gpg's stderr is not
> > > > ideal there. We should be parsing --status-fd ourselves and making the
> > > > result available via format specifier, similar to the way "log
> > > > --format=%G?" works.
> > > 
> > > I think that would be great, as we could make it simpler for verifiers
> > > to parse gpg output.
> > 
> > Alternatively, we could make it an option to dump the --status-fd output
> > to stderr (or to a custom fd). That still leaves the caller with the
> > responsibility to parse gpg's output, but at least they're parsing the
> > machine-readable bits and not the regular human-readable stderr.
> 
> Don't we already have that for verify-tag and verify-commit? I recall
> adding "--raw" for that very reason:

Heh. Today I learned about "--raw". :)

Thanks for pointing it out. I do still think it would be nice for some
cases to have --format specifiers to get the basic info, but I am glad
that we already have a reasonable method that scripts can use.

It might make sense to make it available from the git-tag porcelain,
too, but since the point is scripting, I'm not sure it's all that
important.

It looks like using "--format" suppresses it, too, which we'd probably
want to fix (presumably it's the same as the fix for the non-raw
output).

> The idea was that users might want to restrict signatures to using
> subkeys or certain algorithms or what-have-you, and this was the easiest
> way to let people have all of that power.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

-Peff