> Now this one's VERBOSE handling is a bit interesting. Previously we'd
> set VERBOSE even if we were going to show a format.  And then later we
> just set the OMIT_STATUS bit, leaving VERBOSE in place:
> 
> > -		flags |= GPG_VERIFY_OMIT_STATUS;
> 
> That _usually_ didn't matter because with OMIT_STATUS, we'd never enter
> print_signature_buffer(), which is where VERBOSE would usually kick in.
> But there's another spot we look at it:
> 
>   $ grep -nC2 VERBOSE tag.c 
>   22-
>   23-	if (size == payload_size) {
>   24:		if (flags & GPG_VERIFY_VERBOSE)
>   25-			write_in_full(1, buf, payload_size);
>   26-		return error("no signature found");
> 
> So the code prior to your patch actually had another weird behavior. Try
> this:
> 
>   $ git verify-tag -v --format='my tag is %(tag)' v2.21.0
>   my tag is v2.21.0
> 
>   $ git tag -m bar foo
>   $ git verify-tag -v --format='my tag is %(tag)' foo
>   object 66395b630f8ca08705b36c359415af8b25da9a11
>   type commit
>   tag foo
>   tagger Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 1557387618 -0400
>   
>   bar
>   error: no signature found
> 
> The "-v" only kicks in when there's an error. I think what your patch is
> doing (consistently ignoring "-v" when there's a format) makes more
> sense. It may be worth alerting the user when "-v" and "--format" are
> used together (or arguably we should _always_ show "-v" if the user
> really asked for it, but it does not make any sense to me for somebody
> to do so).

Aha! I completely missed this but it is indeed weird. Something
similar happened to me when I was sketching some patches for tag
verification in a downstream project...

> > -	if (format.format) {
> > +	if (format.format)
> >  		if (verify_ref_format(&format))
> >  			usage_with_options(verify_tag_usage,
> >  					   verify_tag_options);
> > -	}
> 
> This leaves us with a weird doubled conditional (with no braces
> either!). Maybe:
> 
>   if (format.format && verify_ref_format(&format))
> 	usage_with_options(...);
> 
> ?

Yes, I think chaining this if here is cleaner/less error prone.

> 
> Other than that, the patch looks good. I think it could use a test in
> t7030, though.

Let me make a re-roll with these changes included and a test suite for
both t7030 or t7004.

Thanks!
-Santiago.