Hi
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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").
>
Yes, I though the same. But when I saw the way it was parsed before
(the value of sig_line), I was not sure about naming.
I agree it would be better to name it "tagger".
regards,
--
Marc-André Lureau
Sent from: Helsinki Southern Finland Finland.
--
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
