Alexander 'z33ky' Hirsch <1zeeky@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Previously git-pull silently ignored the --verify-signatures option for
> --rebase.
Missing pieces information that would have made the patch more
complete are answers to these questions:
- Is that a bad thing? Why?
- Assuming it is a bad thing, what is the solution this patch
presents us? Teach rebase about the option? Error out the
request? What is the reason why "warn" was chosen as the best
way forward?
> builtin/pull.c | 2 ++
> t/t5520-pull.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/pull.c b/builtin/pull.c
> index 1d7333c..0eafae7 100644
> --- a/builtin/pull.c
> +++ b/builtin/pull.c
> @@ -815,6 +815,8 @@ static int run_rebase(const unsigned char *curr_head,
> argv_array_push(&args, "--no-autostash");
> else if (opt_autostash == 1)
> argv_array_push(&args, "--autostash");
> + if (opt_verify_signatures && strcmp(opt_verify_signatures, "--verify-signatures") == 0)
The logic looks OK. I would have written that long line as two
lines, e.g.
if (opt_verify_signatures &&
!strcmp(opt_verify_signatures, "--verify-signatures")
though.
> + warning(_("git-rebase does not support --verify-signatures"));
Is this a good warning message?
As a casual reader, my reaction to this warning would be "Does not
support? Then what did it do instead? Did it refuse to integrate
my changes on top of what happened on the remote?"
Something like
warning(_("ignored --verify-signatures as it is meaningless in rebase"));
may convey what is going on better, in that it makes it clear that
we are not failing "rebase" and instead we are ignoring "verify".
It is way too long for the final version, though. A more concise
way to say the same thing needs to be found.
Thanks.
--
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