list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "brian m. carlson" <>
To: Junio C Hamano <>
Cc: Han Xin <>, Git List <>,
	Han Xin <>,
	Jiang Xin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t5534: new test case for atomic signed push
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:34:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1763 bytes --]

On 2020-09-15 at 20:31:38, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Han Xin <> writes:
> > In order to test signed atomic push, add a new test case.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jiang Xin <>
> > Signed-off-by: Han Xin <>
> > ---
> Thanks, but nowhere in the above it does not say what is being
> tested.  By looking at 2/2 (by the way, these should be a single
> atomic patch, not a "failure turns into success", as it is not even
> a bug fix), readers may be able to guess that you want to enforce
> that with even broken implementation of GPG, an immediate failure to
> push one of the refs will be noticed by looking at their refs, but
> it is unclear why that is even desirable---if you combine the two
> patches, you may have a better place to argue why it is a good idea,
> but a test-only patch makes it even less clear why the new behavior
> expected by this test is desirable.

Yeah, I find myself a little confused by this, and I think maybe a more
verbose commit message could be valuable in clearing that up.  I think
what this series is trying to do is check that if we can tell on the
client side that the push will be rejected, then not to invoke GnuPG to
generate the push certificate.

If so, that would be a nice change; after all, the user's key may
involve a smartcard or a passphrase and avoiding needless hassle for the
user would be desirable.  But even after reading the series, it's not
clear to me that that _is_ what the goal is here or that this is
necessarily the best way of going about it.  Telling us more about the
reason for the patch would help us understand the change and why it's
valuable better.
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 263 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-16  0:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-15  9:58 Han Xin
2020-09-15  9:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] send-pack: check atomic push before running GPG Han Xin
2020-09-15 21:02   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-15 21:40     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-16  1:53     ` Jiang Xin
2020-09-16  4:37       ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-16 11:49         ` Jiang Xin
2020-09-16 23:44           ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-18  4:50             ` [PATCH v2] send-pack: run GPG after atomic push checking Han Xin
2020-09-19  0:02               ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-19 14:47                 ` [PATCH v3] " Han Xin
2020-09-19 23:02                   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-09-20  6:20                     ` [PATCH v4] " Han Xin
2020-09-16 17:35         ` [PATCH 2/2] send-pack: check atomic push before running GPG 韩欣(炽天)
2020-09-15 20:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] t5534: new test case for atomic signed push Junio C Hamano
2020-09-16  0:34   ` brian m. carlson [this message]
2020-09-15 20:34 ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/2] t5534: new test case for atomic signed push' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).