Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> diff --git a/tag.h b/tag.h
> index 7a0cb00..bc2cab3 100644
> --- a/tag.h
> +++ b/tag.h
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ struct tag {
> struct object object;
> struct object *tagged;
> char *tag;
> - char *signature; /* not actually implemented */
> + char *signature;
> };
I do not speak for Daniel, but I think the original intent of "signature"
is about the GnuPG signature, not the "tagger" field.
And this is not an objection. The use of GnuPG is accidental and at the
low level of the object layer like this codepath we would not necessarily
want to be married to it. Grabbing and parsing the tagger field like your
patches 1/6 and 2/6 did would be more appropriate.
But then we would probably want to rename this field "tagger" (and then
the timestamp field you add in the next patch "tagger_date").
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
