Re: [PATCH] tag: add tag.gpgSign config option to force all tags be GPG-signed

["Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>]

Hi Jonathan,

I can't disagree with you - the right solution is to fix the build/release process to support
signed tagging. It's just too many of them to fix: jenkins, maven, IDE, etc. My naive assumption
was that if a tool (git) has a switch to enable some functionality, why not have a possibility
to make it default.

You can put this change on hold and re-consider it if more people will need such functionality.

Thanks,
   Tigran.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Nieder" <jrnieder@gmail.com>
> To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
> Cc: "git" <git@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:33:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tag: add tag.gpgSign config option to force all tags be GPG-signed

> Hi again,
> 
> Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
>> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote:
> 
>>>> In some workflows we have no control on how git command is executed,
>>>> however a signed tags are required.
>>>
>>> Don't leave me hanging: this leaves me super curious.  Can you tell me
>>> more about these workflows?
>>
>> Well, this is a build/release process where we can't pass additional
>> command line options to git. TO be hones, is case of annotated tags
>> there is already option tag.forceSignAnnotated. However, non annotated
>> tags are not forced to be signed.
>>
>> Additionally, the proposed option is symmetric with commit.gpgSign.
> 
> Now I'm even more curious.
> 
> I don't think we have the full picture to understand whether this
> change is needed.  When adding a configuration item, we need to be
> able to explain to users what the configuration item is for, and so
> far the only answer I am hearing is "because we do not want to patch
> our build/release script, though we could in principle".  That doesn't
> sound like a compelling reason.
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps the answer is "our build/release script
> does not have a --sign option for the following reason, and this is a
> better interface for configuring it".
> 
> Or perhaps there is an answer that does not involve the build/release
> script.
> 
> But with no answer at all, it is hard to see why we should move
> forward on this patch.
> 
> To be clear, I am not saying that writing the patch is wasted effort.
> E.g. you can continue to use it internally, and it means that once we
> have a clear reason to add this configuration, the patch is there and
> ready to use to do so.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Jonathan