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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 3503D2027C for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:23:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752593AbdGMVXE (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:23:04 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:36578 "EHLO mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153AbdGMVXD (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:23:03 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f65.google.com with SMTP id y129so8220318pgy.3 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:23:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=exF2UVl5zOjabQOmD4OIGoklWUeKTjEpV4pY8elJKkw=; b=sPv4b/rFHlBA5iaeGRS04PIRfV1bZll97prgZBV8Lrk9Pe3SX03cU+mZ5VNxof//jr aUoH/S40mcV4mWQu71Hgy4pPSW3JvVUD/KCWa7QUJhTku1LkyEWkPs/oBH4rV2rslJtK Rd2fk38+idYTVe/Cttqw1oKRrRhYQ7TFaOgLKtQTDl2wRwYlZbum+ZifIIxgPJ2ZCihu ef2DJScqEQo5Xg5sCpO4GtihNTZlaWrNWes44jk/b3KDJ1Iv3UvEKuubstxWUFwN34SQ I89pxo9lykIZ72f7haBx3j3QsNtBKDXkV0m5wOR0xfA74Gocn/tidprm/c31T3a4mMdk I24g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=exF2UVl5zOjabQOmD4OIGoklWUeKTjEpV4pY8elJKkw=; b=k78wbGd8sckUc61utQ18SVrzj+neOYCm2aKtbkz2FTYFm/aTeXs6TMG4heZHFqSVp1 OkYX7oh9r8vUxvxiSOseBE9SyWAdxtj4hjbBSPI03DcTEX6jLd8rV94HFUOPXE4zzDYK Zki6WocV7xCQCQRQVdZxY1dMyEcAMGxgz23lY6yv481V2MrxF6TElH+GhHo3sYWTQMtz K4WkdZ0DCtkwNAzRBwA3p1uLslxqVkVqAFNcfa5MTylD3RYArPPiXj+ehLyD1QTHTIEE HOoTRKHwdM1eAHiVHrc0g9QTz4KFHkTb+7hCcqu9HHc8WbfRpFMCTFjI5Ho+mcOvtMWl UxAA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112N5ttH8Fxc6A8gd8uAeAzzyYtStfZcKtk//XTY+EgalHNQJloS Oj7KNOK97T6bOg== X-Received: by 10.84.134.34 with SMTP id 31mr12538791plg.57.1499980982460; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:3079:9e61:8883:4f9c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n90sm13551272pfk.105.2017.07.13.14.23.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:23:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tag: convert gpg_verify_tag to use struct object_id References: <20170713004415.5051-1-sbeller@google.com> <20170713004415.5051-2-sbeller@google.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:23:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:00:24 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Stefan Beller writes: >> >>> diff --git a/builtin/verify-tag.c b/builtin/verify-tag.c >>> index f9a5f7535a..ed8329340f 100644 >>> --- a/builtin/verify-tag.c >>> +++ b/builtin/verify-tag.c >>> @@ -56,20 +56,21 @@ int cmd_verify_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) >>> } >>> >>> while (i < argc) { >>> - unsigned char sha1[20]; >>> + struct object_id oid; >>> const char *name = argv[i++]; >>> - if (get_sha1(name, sha1)) { >>> + >>> + if (get_oid(name, &oid)) { >>> had_error = !!error("tag '%s' not found.", name); >>> continue; >>> } >> >> This part is already done, it seems, in bc/object-id topic, even >> though other parts are not yet done? > > Oops. I assumed the latest bc/object-id would have been in master > already, but after checking it is not. 967635dc3c2 > (builtin/verify-tag: convert to struct object_id) > converts this part, although there are 2 differences: > * I added a stray newline before get_oid > * The argument to gpg_verify_tag is a sha1 or oid > > So yes, this produces a merge conflict. :/ That is OK. This actually shouldn't create any meaningful conflict. Both try to do the same code, with only a blank-line difference. As Brian said bc/object-id would be rerolled, I was wondering if I should queue these two patches (even though I already queued them) myself, or it would be better for you to send them to Brian to make it part of his series.