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=-5.6 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 3B0DE207EC for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752213AbcI3X2w (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:28:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:64258 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751677AbcI3X2v (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:28:51 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6495843539; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:28:50 -0400 (EDT) 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=VK/ZtPBqM7x4yB3z9mYX8AbYPxA=; b=YIEQ2f AWf3+EikIaYGDWU3gZ6D9+NOmAq9aZ7SzaDE6cbmt+cP1SVTLRrJxT+7jUcHefxc 5wzGBh6bWmbhE4N8RdknYv/Nb1BcHx1l8haUH5r9WmYtQwVLQOvK3viF6PweBOw0 roXTN6rPn2uDvo9LLqgnPBEatpKZp+tKjlMIo= 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=K1WU6DkXzZxDpa+RiC2ORpzBh9nF/2ay 2bHkpXWsOj/N9RcU7Td0ohninmZcGYbqcNwJwoN/Ejrdzza0zBlQ7IgpcSHdJnBe z/6Aax59HNRVbkajgSg+amMBvkD1m7lxai6WCCNweOxoi32GAVeRLp5gmQBYTtZr 4ZQ9UGxJPis= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5180343537; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:28:50 -0400 (EDT) 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-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD71443535; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:28:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: santiago@nyu.edu Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, sunshine@sunshineco.com, walters@verbum.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add --format to tag verification References: <20160930221806.3398-1-santiago@nyu.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:28:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160930221806.3398-1-santiago@nyu.edu> (santiago@nyu.edu's message of "Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:18:01 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A44166CA-8765-11E6-9DFB-C26412518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org What is in the patch series looked more or less good to me. Lukas's sirname was still P in [3/5], a patch in [4/5] added an unnecssary blank line before git_verify_tag_config() and also a local variable declaration for "char *fmt_pretty" was indented funnily, but none of these were something I couldn't fix up locally. I however notice that there is no new tests to protect these two new features from future breakages. Perhaps you want to add some in [6/5]? Thanks.