From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6531F728 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751807AbcFWFoa (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:44:30 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:34959 "EHLO mail-qk0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751793AbcFWFo2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:44:28 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c73so94554449qkg.2 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:44:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xp/tm6fhP+8BkXYtZin9EjQwO7R18YHmkfJ/+GvQqBU=; b=GwPxwqtnis9OSXCUAKeXLv6p4qirynQg4Dnp7SOa83cx4ombsoSG5RTewYvlVWJyI5 NNZQXfiP/qb0EbdfQEiaOpVBeAjK/bDORt0ibXU8h/K5DAZDhHV4QTLXALHxT43j5ykL oOj7148HxJT3aESqIR2ZFw/f2mhUsiVGXN2FQxH0/k0h8Vx7D3Sxk/ewxAQIeF+2QFCG xP9gpUafnVgcG61yxDpnz1JvJozaqdQVhsfnO/1O7mq052FbW90oNgJsYCI8YkX/A25J y98RcCS7GxKHAnxxcRWCfZRB8uZATNR24RAdF/VIpMSlIHQR8TzOZpKFbBBUKE/Vc9VT AKVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xp/tm6fhP+8BkXYtZin9EjQwO7R18YHmkfJ/+GvQqBU=; b=jUGA3QNlocE3Sot+HlD3zfaXFPPYNJ0tu78J3f9DIMVId9VKpvD1VVg2MgRcpDrjzh ziuae0gCCyWLAbRzh7Qu8evFjXhyDaoIFFzbV4LsyWMatDRNrbsuQSaq2/1Sy+YEExzc KS3VAL5vLtssFDp/YMePovpPwrC6wN+Z/XFH/ufiH6rVsgVD/DHeMMiULWDa/w5w4no1 YWLJDhBsgk5MLuNaip68hXf8n21JSFw+u8wtp+Rb6KOtdm9fwab5BZFEIR2a/wFZYqPl 5ddECW2nKdQMbmrRgoo4sQiYohirSCqvo60mXzfQIH+E0kUNOgucGTgU9KqelxbB6VIn kORg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKVJaIJdDe/hOcAQ/TNULg5HmJGM/4SKWjC9ik9+0HtU21MICYHpm4nkTh/1M3CtkwDUceVgVWirRRv5Q== X-Received: by 10.55.47.6 with SMTP id v6mr40952383qkh.11.1466660667877; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:44:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.123.6 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:44:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160622165126.12786-1-mehul.jain2029@gmail.com> From: Mehul Jain Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:14:27 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Introduce log.showSignature config variable To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mehul Jain writes: > >> Add a new configuratation variable "log.showSignature" for git-log >> and related commands. "log.showSignature=true" will enable user to >> see GPG signature by default for git-log and related commands. >> >> Changes compared to v2: >> * A preparatory patch 1/3 has been introduced so that tests >> in patches 2/3 and 3/3 can take advantage of it. > > It is unclear how this change allows the remainder to "take > advanrage" to me. Earlier, "signed" branch was created only when > the GPG prerequisite is met and with this change the branch is > always created, which is the only change as far as I can see. But > the tests that are added in 2 and 3 are all protected with the GPG > prerequiste. > > Besides, the invocation of "git commit -S" after this change is no > longer protected by the GPG prerequisite and it may even cause the > 'setup' step to fail on a host without GPG. I overlooked the GPG prerequisite when I created the "setup signed branch" test in patch 1/3. I will send a patch to rectify it ones everyone agree with the idea behind this patch. In patch 2/3 and 3/3, there are many tests which requires a branch similar to that of "signed" branch, i.e. a branch with a commit having GPG signature. So previously in v2, I created two new branches, "test_sign" and "no_sign", which are identical to that of "signed" branch. And with these branches, I wrote the tests in patch 2/3 and 3/3. As suggested by Eric [1], rather than creating new branches, I can take advantage of "signed" branch which already exists. So, I created a new test to separate the creation of "signed" branch from existing test "log --graph --show-signature". This was done because I do not want new tests to depend on this test. If in future someone changes this test then it will affect new tests introduced in 2/3 and 3/3. Now the new tests and existing one ("log --graph ... ") are using a single branch "signed" to do there work. If changing an existing test is not well justified here, then I can create setup test for new tests only, without affecting the existing test. [1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/297648 Thanks, Mehul