On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 19:03 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michał Górny <mgorny@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > As for how involved... we'd just have to use a key that has split > > signing subkey. Would it be fine to add the subkey to the existing key? > > It would imply updating keyids/fingerprints everywhere. > > Yes, that "everywhere" is exactly what I meant by "how involved", > and your suggestion answers "very much involved". > > If we can easily add _another_ key with a subkey that is not the > primary one we use for other tests, without touching the existing > key and the existing tests that use it (including the one I touched > below--- we'd want to see a sig with a key that is not split is > shown with the same %GF and %GP), while adding a handful of new > tests that create signed objects under the new & split key and > view them with %GF and %GP, then the end result would be that we > managed to add a new test case where %GF/%GP are different without > making very much involved changes. I guess that was what I was > getting at. > I've just did a little research and came to the following results: 1. modifying the 'C. O. Mitter' key would require changes to 4 tests, 2. modifying the 'Eris Discordia' key would require changes to 2 tests (both in 7510). Do you think 2. would be an acceptable option? I think changing 2 tests would be preferable to proliferating a third key for one test case. Also, given that both failing tests are specifically format string tests, one of them would serve additional purpose of testing %GP!=%GF. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
