Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 26
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:31:19 +0200
- From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 26
> Hi Christian,
> Thanks for the ping on the draft.
Thanks for you input on this!
> Re gpg: Maybe some valuable point of information is what Werner Koch
> himself said in that thread:
> "That [the command line is not a stable API to GnuPG] is not true. The
> command line interface has been stable for the
> last 19 years. We only removed a left over PGP-2 backward compatibility
> in 2.1 (-kvv). I doubt that this has even been noticed."
Yeah, I could add the above, but there is already the following in the
article (which is already quite long):
Bernhard then replied to each of the points Linus had raised. About
"library versioning" his reply was:
> In my experience Werner (the lead GnuPG developers) is quite reasonable about
> keeping APIs stable (he often goes out of his way to keep even the command
> line version stable, maybe he shouldn't do that to the command line options
> so you are more motivated to go to this official API gpgme. >:) )
So I think Bernhard already knew and had already written that the
command line API is basically stable thanks to Werner's efforts.
> I think our conclusion was that on Git's side, there is no problem to
> solve (except, maybe, to use gpg2 by default when gpg is not installed)
> because the main problem is mixed installations of gpg1 and gpg2.1+, and
> we don't want to use a library instead of the command line API for the
> reasons mentioned by Linus and others.
I agree that one conclusion is that maybe we should use gpg2 by
default when gpg is not installed or when both gpg and gpg2 are
But I think another important conclusion on the Git side is Peff's
email, which basically says that gpg.program cannot be removed and
"gpg.program = gpgme" could be added.
But I prefer not to state these conclusions explicitly in the article
as people might disagree :-)