Jeff King <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> From: Jan Palus <[email protected]> >> >> These all came as part of an earlier st/verify-tag topic that was >> merged to 2.12. >> >> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> * This should be applied on top of 4fea72f4 ("t/t7004-tag: Add >> --format specifier tests", 2017-01-17) >> >> t/t7004-tag.sh | 8 ++++---- >> t/t7030-verify-tag.sh | 8 ++++---- >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > Like 2/3, this one also produces test failures for me. It looks like > "verify-tag" does not show a tag which has been forged. I'm not sure if > that's intentional (and the test is wrong) or a bug. +cc Santiago
It appears that the test expected a broken one to be shown, and my reading of its log message is that the change expected --format= to be used with %G? so that scripts can tell between pass and fail? So if I have to judge, the code becoming silent for a tag that does not pass verification is not doing what the commit wanted it to do.
