On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 21:29:12 -0600, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Luke Shumaker <lukeshu@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > ---signed-tags=(verbatim|warn|warn-strip|strip|abort):: > > +--signed-tags=(verbatim|warn-verbatim|warn-strip|strip|abort):: > > Specify how to handle signed tags. Since any transformation > > after the export can change the tag names (which can also happen > > when excluding revisions) the signatures will not match. > > @@ -36,8 +36,10 @@ When asking to 'abort' (which is the default), this program will die > > when encountering a signed tag. With 'strip', the tags will silently > > be made unsigned, with 'warn-strip' they will be made unsigned but a > > warning will be displayed, with 'verbatim', they will be silently > > -exported and with 'warn', they will be exported, but you will see a > > -warning. > > +exported and with 'warn-verbatim', they will be exported, but you will > > +see a warning. > > ++ > > +`warn` is a deprecated synonym of `warn-verbatim`. > > Two minor points > > - Is it obvious to everybody what is the implication of using > "verbatim" (which in turn would bring the readers to realize why > it often deserves a warning)? If not, would it make sense to > explain why "verbatim" may (may not) be a good idea in different > situations? I had assumed that the above paragraph | Specify how to handle signed tags. Since any transformation | after the export can change the tag names (which can also happen | when excluding revisions) the signatures will not match. was adaquate for that purpose, but we can maybe do better? > - I am not sure a deprecated synonym deserves a separate paragraph. Fair enough. My thinking was to keep the deprecation separate from the main "happy path" text. How about: | Specify how to handle signed tags. Since any transformation after the | export (or during the export, such as excluding revisions) can change | the hashes being signed, the signatures may not match. | | When asking to 'abort' (which is the default), this program will die | when encountering a signed tag. With 'strip', the tags will silently | be made unsigned, with 'warn-strip' they will be made unsigned but a | warning will be displayed, with 'verbatim', they will be silently | exported and with 'warn-verbatim' (or 'warn', a deprecated synonym), | they will be exported, but you will see a warning. 'verbatim' should | not be used unless you know that no transformations affecting tags | will be performed, or unless you do not care that the resulting tag | will have an invalid signature. ? > > diff --git a/builtin/fast-export.c b/builtin/fast-export.c > > index 85a76e0ef8..d121dd2ee6 100644 > > --- a/builtin/fast-export.c > > +++ b/builtin/fast-export.c > > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ static int parse_opt_signed_tag_mode(const struct option *opt, > > signed_tag_mode = SIGNED_TAG_ABORT; > > else if (!strcmp(arg, "verbatim") || !strcmp(arg, "ignore")) > > signed_tag_mode = VERBATIM; > > - else if (!strcmp(arg, "warn")) > > + else if (!strcmp(arg, "warn-verbatim") || !strcmp(arg, "warn")) > > signed_tag_mode = WARN; > > else if (!strcmp(arg, "warn-strip")) > > signed_tag_mode = WARN_STRIP; > > It would be preferrable to do s/WARN/WARN_VERBATIM/ at this step, as > the plan is to deprecate "warn", even if you are going to redo the > enums in later steps. May want to consider doing so as a clean-up > iff this topic need rerolling for other reasons. Ack. > > diff --git a/t/t9350-fast-export.sh b/t/t9350-fast-export.sh > > index 409b48e244..892737439b 100755 > > --- a/t/t9350-fast-export.sh > > +++ b/t/t9350-fast-export.sh > > @@ -253,6 +253,24 @@ test_expect_success 'signed-tags=verbatim' ' > > > > ' > > > > +test_expect_success 'signed-tags=warn-verbatim' ' > > + > > + git fast-export --signed-tags=warn-verbatim sign-your-name >output 2>err && > > + grep PGP output && > > + test -s err > > I didn't look at the surrounding existing tests, but in general > "test -s err" is not a good ingredient in any test. The feature you > happen to care about today may not stay to be be the only thing that > writes to the standard error stream. Yeah, that line made me nervous, but I figured if it was good enough for the existing 'warn-strip' test, then it was good enough for 'warn-verbatim' too. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker
