From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-tag -s must fail if gpg is broken and cannot sign tags Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:20:14 -0700 Message-ID: <7vd4wwe2n5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20070906042115.GA343@spearce.org> <20070906042653.GQ18160@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Carlos Rica , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 06 08:20:28 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ITAj5-00036b-5n for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:20:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757080AbXIFGUW (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 02:20:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757242AbXIFGUW (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 02:20:22 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:47003 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757080AbXIFGUW (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 02:20:22 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C3C12EED6; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 02:20:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20070906042653.GQ18160@spearce.org> (Shawn O. Pearce's message of "Thu, 6 Sep 2007 00:26:53 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > "Shawn O. Pearce" wrote: >> If the user has misconfigured `user.signingkey` in their .git/config >> or just doesn't have any secret keys on their keyring and they ask >> for a signed tag with `git tag -s` we better make sure the resulting >> tag was actually signed by gpg. > ... >> I think this and my prior contrib/workdir patch should both go into >> maint. This one in particular; it hurt us today when an automated >> tool that runs `git tag -s` didn't notice the GnuPG problems. > > I'm sorry, despite the subject of this email this is actually a > *one* patch series. The 2/2 is because I applied and tested this > on top of the contrib/workdir patch I was talking about above and > my email sending script thought it was a two patch series. This seems to fail the test depending on the order processes happen to be scheduled. I haven't looked at it closely yet.