Re: [PATCH 8/8] gpg-interface: handle alternative signature types

[Ben Toews <mastahyeti@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:08:20PM -0600, Ben Toews wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> 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.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > 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.
>
> I agree with Ben's assessment. A stand-in tool for gpgsm support will
> not be useful without a way to configure it with Git. I think that
> treating this series as ``add support for _gpgsm-like tools_'' is
> sensible, and a reasonable compromise between:
>
>   - More generalized support.
>   - No support at all.
>
> Thanks,
> Taylor


Any more thoughts as to whether adding support for CMS tooling is
worthwhile as a stepping stone towards supporting more general
tooling?