On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:50:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > The `tag.gpgsign` config option allows to sign all > > commits automatically. > > I presume that you meant "all annotated tags" here. But I am not > sure it this is sensible. Yes its a mistake. > > Support `--no-sign` option to countermand configuration `tag.gpgsign`. > So I do not see why you need a new --no-sign option at all. If > you have the configuration and you do want to create an unsigned > annotated tag one-shot, all you need is to explicitly ask for "-a" > i.e. > > $ git tag -a -m "my message" v1.0 > > isn't it? You know that when you have sign configuration enabled globally annotate is implicite, so its difficult to join both world. I use same idea as in your patch `55ca3f99ae4895605a348322dd2fc50f2065f508`. > If you are forcing users to always leave a message and then further > forcing users to always sign with the single new configuration, i.e. > > $ git tag v1.0 > ... opens the editor to ask for a message ... > ... then makes the user sign with GPG ... I'm not forcing this type of user to enable global configuration, that will be annoying for them of course. I tried to fix a need I have currently and this is a good compromise for me. > then I would first have to say that is a bad idea. > > I can sort-of understand (but do not necessarily agree that it is a > good idea) adding new two configurations, i.e. > > - "even without -a/-s, force the user to annotate the tag" is one > configuration, and > > - "even when the user did not say -s, force the user to sign an > annotated tag" is the other. > > And with such a system, I can see why you would need an option > "--lightweight" to force creation of a light-weight tag (i.e. to > countermand the first one). You can view this new option as > something that sits next to existing -a/-s. The current system lets > user choose among the three variants (lightweight, annotated and > signed) by not giving any, giving -a, and giving -s option > respectively, but with the "--lightweight" option, the user can ask > for one of the three explicitly, as opposed to using "lack of either > -a/-s" as a signal to create lightweight one. > > And in the context of such a system, "--no-sign" may make sense to > override the second configuration (i.e. "force the user to sign an > annotated tag"). > > But otherwise, adding only "--no-sign" does not make much sense to > me, as it implies "not signing always means annotated", which is not > true. It is unclear between lightweight and annotated which one the > user who says "--no-sign" really wants. As I said it's difficult to easily join both world, as you know with configuration and command line options. This is an override and if its really a no go for this patch without refactoring this I will stop my work on it. Just let me know I will send a patch v3 updated with tests after this. Cheers, -- Laurent -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html