On 28/09/16 20:59, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> + "X" for a good expired signature, or good signature made by an expired key, > > As an attempt to clarify that we cover both EXPSIG and EXPKEYSIG > cases, I think this is good enough. I may have phrased the former > slightly differently, though: "a good signature that has expired". > > I have no strong opinion if we want to stress that we cover both > cases, though, which is I think what Ramsay's comment was about. Kinda! ;-) I'm not sure that it is a good idea to mash both EXPSIG and EXPKEYSIG into one status letter, but I was also fishing for some information about EXPSIG. I was only vaguely aware that a signature could expire _independently_ of the key used to do the signing. Also, according to https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg/Automated-signature-checking.html for the EXPSIG case 'Note, that this case is currently not implemented.' Hmm, I guess these are so closely related that a single status letter is OK, but I think I would prefer your phrasing; namely: "X" for a good signature that has expired, or a good signature made with an expired key, [Although that is still a bit cumbersome.] ATB, Ramsay Jones