On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:04:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jan Palus <jan.palus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> These all came as part of an earlier st/verify-tag topic that was
> >> merged to 2.12.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> * This should be applied on top of 4fea72f4 ("t/t7004-tag: Add
> >> --format specifier tests", 2017-01-17)
> >>
> >> t/t7004-tag.sh | 8 ++++----
> >> t/t7030-verify-tag.sh | 8 ++++----
> >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > Like 2/3, this one also produces test failures for me. It looks like
> > "verify-tag" does not show a tag which has been forged. I'm not sure if
> > that's intentional (and the test is wrong) or a bug. +cc Santiago
>
> It appears that the test expected a broken one to be shown, and my
> reading of its log message is that the change expected --format= to
> be used with %G? so that scripts can tell between pass and fail?
>
> So if I have to judge, the code becoming silent for a tag that does
> not pass verification is not doing what the commit wanted it to do.
>
Yes, considering the test name is:
"verifying a forged tag with --format fail and format accordingly"
It feels as if the behavior of verify-tag/tag -v is not the one
intended. I could add two patches on top of those two commits.
Would this be enough?
-Santiago.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature