On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 05:43:57PM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote: > > 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. > > I see that offending code would be [1]. Changing this behavior should be > trivial (dropping the continue), although I'm not sure if this is what > we want?
I could see arguments for either behavior. The fact that v2.12 was released with the skip-gpg-failures behavior makes me inclined to just keep that and fix the test. But I don't feel strongly. If we do change it, I think builtin/tag.c:verify_tag() would need a similar fix (to avoid the early return). -Peff
