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=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 64D171F794 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753029AbdAZSaF (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:30:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57832 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752695AbdAZSaD (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:30:03 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEA56394B; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:29:18 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9n7pe/58vx0BUZtMqn/2MnUyo8E=; b=PfwVDC /cfQPA65T+Y34hHeMecTH0kzySyw7H8cf1Mf/Kh3z2HdrqykAcsgBqFA7HDb8C+m mCjZ0pYdgsVCO+PrhUh9UdBTRmyjwGK5O6CC9Xrm5Q7MBbXhJZpZMnug0IsnP/nk iFjxdc56g7EJkUbRLFAbR0h26LsRZMTowfq0A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=DM/nF7TZhdE40ioqguqskscTnqLRK87f huAwk0YrWmxLKw/2KtIYJAq7uNV7vyT6qsQO0ySt06MliUiNrUNviFKJbANCTGIL ycmVA/8YF/XNjbm23wyt7jwZgFOw4qcbX9vKZ8bRb03X1Kd0BRCqY+vZE6s75MmT rquuU2r1gdo= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770676394A; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:29:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D178B63948; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:29:17 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Mike Hommey Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpg-interface: Add some output from gpg when it errors out. References: <20170125030434.26448-1-mh@glandium.org> <20170125235410.byxwmo7o7zdszzot@glandium.org> <20170126025530.r4fesye447do5wdx@glandium.org> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:29:16 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170126025530.r4fesye447do5wdx@glandium.org> (Mike Hommey's message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:55:30 +0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 58DCD9B6-E3F5-11E6-B982-A7617B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Mike Hommey writes: >> With that information recorded in the log (or in-code comment, or >> both), if it turns out that some lines with the prefix are useful >> (or some other lines without the prefix are not very useful), they >> can tweak the filtering criteria as appropriate, with confidence >> that they _know_ for what purpose the initial "filter lines with the >> prefix" was trying to serve, and their update is still in the same >> spirit as the original, only executed better. > > Come to think of it, and considering that mutt happily signs emails in > the same conditions, maybe it would make sense to just ignore gpg return > code as long as there is a SIG_CREATED message... I do not think we want to go there. If GPG reports failure, there is something funny going on.