On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:14:32PM -0400, santiago@xxxxxxx wrote: > From: Santiago Torres <santiago@xxxxxxx> > > On the git tag -v code, there is a guard to suppress gpg output if a > pretty format is provided. The rationale for this is that the gpg output > *and* the pretty formats together may conflict with each other. However, > both outputs are directed to different output streams and, as such, > they can safely coexist. Drop the guard clause and use > GPG_VERIFY_VERBOSE regardless of the pretty format I think this makes sense. My first worry was whether this would be surprising to any callers, but as you note, they go to different streams. However, I don't think this patch is quite right, as it causes us to dump the whole tag contents to stdout, as well. E.g.: [before] $ git tag -v --format='foo %(tag)' v2.21.0 foo v2.21.0 [after] $ git tag -v --format='foo %(tag)' v2.21.0 object 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642 type commit tag v2.21.0 tagger Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 1551023739 -0800 Git 2.21 gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 24 10:55:39 2019 EST gpg: using RSA key E1F036B1FEE7221FC778ECEFB0B5E88696AFE6CB gpg: Good signature from "Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>" [full] gpg: aka "Junio C Hamano <jch@xxxxxxxxxx>" [full] gpg: aka "Junio C Hamano <junio@xxxxxxxxx>" [full] foo v2.21.0 I think "git verify-tag" would need similar treatment, too: $ git verify-tag v2.21.0 gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 24 10:55:39 2019 EST gpg: using RSA key E1F036B1FEE7221FC778ECEFB0B5E88696AFE6CB gpg: Good signature from "Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>" [full] gpg: aka "Junio C Hamano <jch@xxxxxxxxxx>" [full] gpg: aka "Junio C Hamano <junio@xxxxxxxxx>" [full] $ git verify-tag --format='foo %(tag)' v2.21.0 foo v2.21.0 In some ways I'm less concerned about verify-tag, though, because the point is that it should be scriptable. And scraping gpg's stderr is not ideal there. We should be parsing --status-fd ourselves and making the result available via format specifier, similar to the way "log --format=%G?" works. So I think ultimately that's the direction we want to go, but I think in the meantime restoring the gpg output to stderr especially for the porcelain "git tag -v" makes sense for human eyes. -Peff
