From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6653207EC for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754800AbcIZRSp (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:18:45 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]:34158 "EHLO mail-io0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751962AbcIZRSo (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:18:44 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id e66so99648311iod.1 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:18:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=lgEC6H1NCYOrQIz4MiYG746SVEl4Expv1Czu1+xkbu0=; b=AwJJXsrRVHDEkmcC7Ej9xspop5h99FZYu1PIuKkJS2qXkZG3bWYJocH6ka93MNTLXc 5o5XjZ3RsNNDBeISzLpN3suZGSWqJ9MH+SvfGXWI72fBfTumUEPMXTaTlEL9vyvkkJjI LT8gSXxCGQPBxd2vSxqBrh1018yCU7QNMeqE7VIv4DO8BeKlOGsAxVWozVREu0CL7k/J hmtq37LC+Txt0zETIClZ3xIL/FzD0eH5lWwmxZDlrfWX0a51JCiSIppOuMHxOx7mF4oO nMl7gOOUCzgRkjBa5cZIIQnTv7PEYun28lu9bgqU3Fb3d4CelKc+ux86cS2gz8eABJO2 nWYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=lgEC6H1NCYOrQIz4MiYG746SVEl4Expv1Czu1+xkbu0=; b=RQZ+5rlGmKVOwzKX1Mq6+rU5tNZDd9m0GZZmsWZShYdUgxUFtFnSe9s6o0wkVHAm+X on1CaFHIVVQNYxl66aUT0vmMpithdkSd8H9A6LgT5cnw7FD/Nvn9bGK80HhZp3yTBC3s wHY98k9OCzMnn5mMI+R9MxNpM9UmMVIg+1H0KAVN2eMNBqWfC0RseIXDQqQFBDHj/K3x UiQ2i0u0aIBTjznmK66vlnwO34Gqg7P9e9JmgK0KRy91s4oQ5xQtwKyjvj2Xvhhv7RKS Eunyh3omE2hb0bg1HWVguY3c3uiavjPxBRMOWAzIj7a8CnImjzU6Fu+35FAvLQNPOYEL gGvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwO72YwktAh2+eZG8hSO4b1O44NW0+5ZXKGubVKRCDT4fk5VWc6EKn3KtiWskNI5LA== X-Received: by 10.107.137.170 with SMTP id t42mr23584766ioi.25.1474910323608; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lylat (S01061859339e9903.ss.shawcable.net. [174.2.107.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o188sm4180682itg.11.2016.09.26.10.18.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:18:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex To: Michael J Gruber Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Request: Extra case for %G? format In-Reply-To: (Michael J. Gruber's message of "Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:53:57 +0200") References: <87d1js1pl1.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:18:23 -0600 Message-ID: <87y42ey3z4.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Michael J Gruber writes: >> Then currently %G? results in `N', the same as an unsigned commit. >> >> In this case, could %G? please result in a new character? Perhaps `M' >> for "missing public key"? > > Yes, and no. > > Really, there are many different reasons why a signature couldn't be > checked, but gpg itself has these status results: > > "For each signature only one of the three codes GOODSIG, BADSIG or > ERRSIG will be emitted" (doc/DETAILS in gpg's source). I see. It seems in GPG2 that got expanded to: "For each signature only one of the codes GOODSIG, BADSIG, EXPSIG, EXPKEYSIG, REVKEYSIG or ERRSIG will be emitted." I don't suppose it's worthwhile to support the others? I'm not sure how important the rest are. > ERRSIG comes with additional info (RC) that could be parsed for the reason. > > Also, in addition to that line, there can be other lines with additional > information. So there is a lot that could potentially be shown (and *is* > shown with %GG). In the GOODSIG case, we parse the TRUST info to take > the trust model into account (and return U for untrusted good). > > I wouldn't mind adding E to %G? in the ERRSIG case, even though one has > to look at %GG in any case (N or E) if one wants to have more details. That would be great. As long as %G? can tell between a signed but uncheckable commit and an unsigned commit, then it's good for me. > > Cheers, > Michael Thanks, Alex