On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:08:20PM -0600, Ben Toews wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > >> If we just want to add gpgsm support, that's fine, but we should be > > >> transparent about that fact and try to avoid making an interface which > > >> is at once too generic and not generic enough. > > > > [...] > > > > My motivation with this series is not just to "add gpgsm support" > > though. I've been working on some other CMS tooling that will be open > > source eventually. My goal was to distribute this tool with a wrapper > > that emulates the GnuPG interface. > > > > To me, this series feels like a good stepping stone towards more > > generalized support for other tooling. > > I agree with Ben's assessment. A stand-in tool for gpgsm support will > not be useful without a way to configure it with Git. I think that > treating this series as ``add support for _gpgsm-like tools_'' is > sensible, and a reasonable compromise between: > > - More generalized support. > - No support at all. > > Thanks, > Taylor Any more thoughts as to whether adding support for CMS tooling is worthwhile as a stepping stone towards supporting more general tooling?
