On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 12:12:04AM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote: > > As a side note, it might actually be an improvement for pgp_verify_tag > > to take a sha1 (so that git-tag is sure that it is verifying the same > > object that it is printing), but that refactoring should probably come > > separately, I think. > > Just to be sure, this refactoring is something we should still include > in this set of patches, right? I think that otherwise we'd lose the > desambigutaion that git tag -v does in this patch.
I think it can be part of this series, but doesn't have to be. As I understand it, the current code is just handing the name to the `git verify-tag` process, so if we continue to do so, that would be OK. > I also think that most of the rippling is gone if we use and adaptor as > you suggested. Should I add a patch on top of this to support a sha1 as > part for gpg_verify_tag()? Yes, though I'd generally advise against a function taking either a name or a sha1, and ignoring the other option. That often leads to confusing interfaces for the callers. Instead, perhaps just take the sha1, and let the caller do the get_sha1() themselves. Or possibly provide two functions, one of which is a convenience to translate the name to sha1 and then call the other. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
