Hi Michael, > Hi Christian, > > Thanks for the ping on the draft. Thanks for you input on this! > Re gpg: Maybe some valuable point of information is what Werner Koch > himself said in that thread: > "That [the command line is not a stable API to GnuPG] is not true. The > command line interface has been stable for the > last 19 years. We only removed a left over PGP-2 backward compatibility > in 2.1 (-kvv). I doubt that this has even been noticed." Yeah, I could add the above, but there is already the following in the article (which is already quite long): ------------------ Bernhard then replied to each of the points Linus had raised. About "library versioning" his reply was: > In my experience Werner (the lead GnuPG developers) is quite reasonable about > keeping APIs stable (he often goes out of his way to keep even the command > line version stable, maybe he shouldn't do that to the command line options > so you are more motivated to go to this official API gpgme. >:) ) ------------------ So I think Bernhard already knew and had already written that the command line API is basically stable thanks to Werner's efforts. > I think our conclusion was that on Git's side, there is no problem to > solve (except, maybe, to use gpg2 by default when gpg is not installed) > because the main problem is mixed installations of gpg1 and gpg2.1+, and > we don't want to use a library instead of the command line API for the > reasons mentioned by Linus and others. I agree that one conclusion is that maybe we should use gpg2 by default when gpg is not installed or when both gpg and gpg2 are installed. But I think another important conclusion on the Git side is Peff's email, which basically says that gpg.program cannot be removed and "gpg.program = gpgme" could be added. But I prefer not to state these conclusions explicitly in the article as people might disagree :-)