On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 01:43:02AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:59:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > >> FWIW, I'm on board with returning non-zero in any case where gpg would. > > > > > > I think that's probably the best solution overall. > > > > FWIW, I am not married to the current behaviour. I would not be > > surprised if it mostly came by accident and not designed. > > Since apparently I was the author of the commit that changed the > behavior originally, let me simply say that I was not aware that gpg > signalled the correctness of a signature by its exit status when I wrote > that patch. If I had known that, I would have deferred to gpg in my > change. My goal was consistency between verify-tag and verify-commit, > and in retrospect I probably made the wrong decision. OK, so it seems like we're all in agreement now. What next? There was a patch at the start of this thread, but it specifically checks for "sigc->result == U". That's probably OK, since I think it restores the behavior in earlier versions of Git. But I wonder if we should simply be storing the fact that gpg exited non-zero and relaying that. That would fix this problem and truly make the rule "if gpg reported an error, we propagate that". -Peff
