Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 08.09.2016 23:36: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> Even though this patch is fixing only one of the two issues, I am >>> tempted to say that we should queue it for now, as it does so >>> without breaking a bigger gain made by the original, i.e. we learn >>> the status of verification in a way the authors of GPG wants us to, >>> while somebody figuires out what the best way is to show the prompt >>> to the console on Windows. >> >> That's OK by me, but I don't know if we can put off the "best way to >> show the prompt" fix. It seems like a pretty serious regression for >> people on Windows. > > Yes, I am not saying that it is OK to keep Windows users broken. > > As I understand what Dscho said correctly, his users are covered by > a reversion of the "read the GPG status correctly" patch, i.e. with > a different trade-off between the correctness of GPG status vs > usability of the prompt, he will ship with Git for Windows, and that > stop-gap measure will last only until developers who can do Windows > (which excludes you, me, and Michael it seems) comes up with a > solution that satisfies both. Unfortunately "I can't do Windows". Also, I'm not sure "I can do pipes", but it's really the ifdeffing that keeps me from even trying: Nothing is gained for Windows users if I extend the Linux code to use an extra file handle for status-fd - which would be the clean and correct solution, but which would need to be implemented twice. > I consider that an approach that is perfectly fine. As a side note, I'm wondering why MSYS-gpg version 1 is bundled with non-MSYS-git. It's an honest question - there must be good reasons for that, and git should work with gpg 1, 2 (maybe) and 2.1, of course. I'm just trying to understand the situation, and the question goes both ways: - some Windows user(s) in the Github issue apparantly had wrong assumptions about which gpg they're using (via git) - why bundle it at all? - If bundling it to get a known working setup, why not gpg 2(.1) which runs gpg-agent automatically, giving a more Windows-like experience for the passphrase-prompt? On Fedora, with some things still requiring gpg 1, gpg 2.1 installed in parallel, things can become confusing quickly because of the 1-time 1-way migration of the secret key store. It's probably the same on Windows with those two gpg's used in parallel (and probably answers my second question). Michael
