Sebastian Götte <ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de> writes:
> On 03/26/2013 02:46 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:> Sebastian Götte
> <ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de> writes:
>>> Rebased it onto the current 'master'. The second patch fixes that the GPG
>>> status parser ignores the first line of GPG status output (that would be
>>> by the new merge signature verification test case).
>> Does it still make sure that it won't be fooled by the expected
>> string appearing in the middle of a line, not at the beginning?
> I thought that would not be a problem until I noticed it checks for GOODSIG
> before it checks for BADSIG. Here is a fix.
What does the order of checking have to do with it? I am confused...
I was more worried about a case where you may end up misinterpreting
[GNUPG:] BADSIG B0B5E88696AFE6CB [GNUPG:] GOODSIG B0B5E88696AFE6CB <y@xz>
as showing goodsig when the signer's name was set to "[GNUPG:]
The "\n" in the original was to make sure the expected message is at
the beginning of a line.
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