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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 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 EB6911F404 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752273AbeDQSIn (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:08:43 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com ([209.85.218.51]:35686 "EHLO mail-oi0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752096AbeDQSIm (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:08:42 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c15-v6so1282007oic.2 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:08:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PTO0xZgK5nJ1LbsKGfcKijZG3BpSmWas09Z+D+FfZyc=; b=kWaoFA7Ih1PWU0H7d/nLmMxVu8hN4VsWWAId/3eXhJo8D66uFp5lmr8dMzoXfzUDyU r4m0nADhmxkdrJYBMaH/e0rKzDbXVkN9WY+geSR2dVTdyjBg+X1y6ZHeIOfX9X1gXmnR i/pVPkxXLP9aTzxbv0ZKBgF4XmaioaBwsu9wXdPKG+JLavh1DjrRTJ9x9XzfWBrUtHKw mEezW8V44QftMgVqUTV1VCeZOGXGS8ya1kkU8UBAhZi/HbUW9YnsW6V9K+pVG8jwQx19 KskwCjhanHH4kKDkYvpw7dRCvlK2MVnpQDBAMf0NWT+u0XXNKeul3qte4uh4UUG31dUB pPig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PTO0xZgK5nJ1LbsKGfcKijZG3BpSmWas09Z+D+FfZyc=; b=fZFzyUmDzqpDGMb6H4xZzDrHbXTDDITYiqgicDvf+pkvkT3sh04Ikz7DreVudpDyB9 iDrnkIVQTrfExshYNBa2JTeL4yR5YalkwmiKP4pe+5UvtNlZg55QbakEtYMhPKGzcG7I faRi4wmjvcuABcVFO1KpA30fZG+3JjxnXTH28km/WolJBA86zAOgSkxWTaSwjWhzImvP 4ZfUyekrwTtCIa3rbFbrXN7gdhmX129UqoL6r/FndA9IY1L1uuTnxBfWbkLipPsEvFls K8Y4DNfxIX7zhxI7i8JQaPp2VGi/TiAbkZPUZTWfBdaj8+Dyo6hgkq4Msn4R/YD4IAJn 3H2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBF63IJMqeK+ImgJL6Z6g08LUue0ZEux/bpbfmqbvU4Vqx0/aVo qqoDeJvUDUVIF3p3B2SDrPew0fmDKUflZ13VvAA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48TlwIkJH4edWQNs01STM1m3QNxQeh2g2KI/oOhlD0lfWS529Jwb1yplZMyLx5JyT2juliTBAKSsReM7AR1hds= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ce42:: with SMTP id e63-v6mr1810530oig.34.1523988521321; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:08:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.117.17 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20180409204129.43537-1-mastahyeti@gmail.com> <20180409204129.43537-9-mastahyeti@gmail.com> <20180414195954.GB14631@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> <20180417001212.GC14631@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> From: Ben Toews Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:08:20 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] gpg-interface: handle alternative signature types To: Junio C Hamano Cc: "brian m. carlson" , Eric Sunshine , Git List , Taylor Blau , Jeff King 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 Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "brian m. carlson" writes: > >> If we just want to add gpgsm support, that's fine, but we should be >> transparent about that fact and try to avoid making an interface which >> is at once too generic and not generic enough. This patch is definitely designed around PGP and CMS, but the config options were intended to leave room for supporting other tools in the future. I think allowing a PEM type to be specified makes a lot of sense for PGP and CMS, but in the future, we can add a `signingtool..regex` option. Similarly, the GnuPG specific command line options and output parsing can be moved into a helper in the future. My motivation with this series is not just to "add gpgsm support" though. I've been working on some other CMS tooling that will be open source eventually. My goal was to distribute this tool with a wrapper that emulates the GnuPG interface. To me, this series feels like a good stepping stone towards more generalized support for other tooling. > One thing that makes me somewhat worried is that "add gpgsm support" > may mean "don't encourage people to use the same PGP like everybody > else does" and instead promote fragmenting the world. There are a lot of projects for which PGP doesn't make sense. For example, many large organizations and government entities don't operate based on a web of trust, but have established PKI based on centralized trust. For organizations like this, adopting commit/tag signing with CMS would be far easier than adopting PGP signing. There's a chance that 10 different software projects will end up using 10 different signing tools, but I don't see that as a problem if those tools are well suited to the projects. Developers are already responsible for learning how to work with the software projects they contribute to.