Re: [PATCH 6/8] gpg-interface: find the last gpg signature line
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:17:57 +0900
- From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] gpg-interface: find the last gpg signature line
Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> That test was fixed a week ago:
> Well, you cannot expect any reviewer to know about a change that has
> never been sent to the list and has never been part of even 'pu'
> branch, no matter how old such a private "fix" is.
> What other unpublished things that are not even on 'pu' do these
> patches depend on?
Answering my own question after digging a bit more, now I know that
a99d903 comes from the 'private' branch in peff/git/ repository
hosted at GitHub [*1*]. The branch builds on 'next' by merging many
private branches, and 'jk/non-pgp-signatures' branch has that commit.
peff.git/private$ git log --oneline --boundary 0c8726318..7a526834e^2
c9ce7c5b7 gpg-interface: handle multiple signing tools
914951682 gpg-interface: handle bool user.signingkey
1f2ea84b3 gpg-interface: return signature type from parse_signature()
6d2ce6547 gpg-interface: prepare for parsing arbitrary PEM blocks
fb1d173db gpg-interface: find the last gpg signature line
6bc4e7e17 gpg-interface: extract gpg line matching helper
4f883ac49 gpg-interface: fix const-correctness of "eol" pointer
ae6529fdb gpg-interface: use size_t for signature buffer size
1bca4296b gpg-interface: modernize function declarations
a99d903f2 t7004: fix mistaken tag name
- 468165c1d Git 2.17
It seems to me that Peff did the t7004 change as the earliest
preliminary step of the series, but it caused confusion when it was
not sent as part of the series by mistake. Judging from the shape
of the topic, I do not think this topic has any other hidden
dependencies as it builds directly on top of v2.17.0.
For those who are reading and reviewing from the sideline, I've
attached that missing 0.9/8 patch at the end of this message.
*1* I do not know if it deserves to be called a bug, but it
certainly is an anomaly GitHub exhibits that a99d903f can be
viewed at https://github.com/git/git/commit/a99d903f..., as if
it is part of the official git/git history, when it only exists
in a fork of that repository. I can understand why it happens
but it certainly is unexpected.
-- >8 --
From: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:10:30 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 0.9/8] t7004: fix mistaken tag name
We have a series of tests which create signed tags with
various properties, but one test accidentally verifies a tag
from much earlier in the series.
t/t7004-tag.sh | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/t/t7004-tag.sh b/t/t7004-tag.sh
index 2aac77af7..ee093b393 100755
@@ -1056,7 +1056,7 @@ test_expect_success GPG \
git tag -s -F sigblanknonlfile blanknonlfile-signed-tag &&
get_tag_msg blanknonlfile-signed-tag >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
- git tag -v signed-tag
+ git tag -v blanknonlfile-signed-tag
# messages with commented lines for signed tags: