From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC1D1F86C for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727022AbgLAW2x (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:28:53 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63426 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727002AbgLAW2x (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:28:53 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286858FC98; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:28:11 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=SX8T55F7N4ZMBe7agAZw9+xNNUo=; b=fBNicT a052R0ZvjgSWyA+GNjkLUa6pbcEmUmorI+Zv0U0aYDh9zKhN8H25n1qMbT2Dlftr /Td1TY2J5I0VXqf/JybqCaZJZTrABHOL6GVqunc1AnPebY4HHdi6fzyeNhNtjeDz i9A5yUlrEBBHMxZkD8GXA6GvI9MbU/JluMbKc= 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=j3mS2mg0aJDy6SJE0lQA9hx5xvQPIn42 fyoPdD5MomGsW/gEgcZj3Roc10wEkm0/o/v5xOG0h2r39wMIPxcnrtcgoQcxM7Y2 5bQfjHTLHlrggOq/x7TMrcCS+zQWwZSNidZj+ZBB/Uy3kp4bPQkWQNTNeP12k+6D /+tLqaSWyNQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204908FC97; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:28:11 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0A608FC95; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:28:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , "brian m . carlson" , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] mktag: use fsck instead of custom verify_tag() References: <20201126012854.399-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20201126222257.5629-10-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 14:28:09 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:47:55 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7E43B746-3424-11EB-90AC-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > I do not see the "we do not want more than one blank line after the > header" in the original, which was one thing I was looking for after > seeing what 08/10 did. > >> + fsck_options.extra = 1; >> + fsck_options.error_func = mktag_fsck_error_func; Hmph, recent "released" versions of Git seems to be fine when --- >8 ------ >8 ------ >8 ------ >8 ------ >8 --- object 72ffeb997eaf999f6938b2a7e0d9a75dcceaa311 type commit tag tester tagger Junio C Hamano 1606860947 -0800 a message after a blank --- 8< ------ 8< ------ 8< ------ 8< ------ 8< --- is fed to their "git mktag". If I am not mistaken, we definitely want to drop the EXTRA_HEADER_BODY_NEWLINE check from 08/10, even though EXTRA_HEADER_ENTRY may be something we want to retain at least for some releases for backward compatibility.