Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] gpg-interface t: extend the existing GPG tests with GPGSM

Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

>> While addressing 1 make 2 obvious and worse, addressing 2 is a whole
>> different story and should probably be discussed outside of this
>> thread. And i would not like to inherit responsibility for 2. In
>> fact the whole discussion emphasizes that it was a good idea to make
>> GPGSM depend on GPG, because it allows to somewhat reuse existing tests.
> IMHO there is a big difference between inheriting responsibility for
> something, and not making it worse.

Well said.