This is v3 rebased on current next (the %G works by Jeff & Junio).

Open questions:

- Should one of git verify-{commit,tag} learn how to verify mergetags?
(Probably no, it differs from both other cases.)

- Should we do this now or go for generic "git verify" right away?
That depends on whether signed commits need to be verified by scripts now,
or whether mergetags are more important.

For a general command which allows different verification policies,
I'm still wondering whether we may need hooks which receive all
the relevant information in the environment. Otherwise we'll have a ton of
options such as --match-committer-uid, --verify--AllParentsHaveMergeTags,
--verify--All-ParentsAreSignedCommits, --peel-to-commit, --merge-commit-only, 

I imagine that a generic "git verify" would provide "git verify-{commit,tag}"
aliases which call "git verify" with options that reproduce the current 

Michael J Gruber (4):
  gpg-interface: provide clear helper for struct signature_check
  gpg-interface: provide access to the payload
  verify-commit: scriptable commit signature verification
  t7510: test verify-commit

 Documentation/git-verify-commit.txt | 28 +++++++++++
 Makefile                            |  1 +
 builtin.h                           |  1 +
 builtin/merge.c                     |  5 +-
 builtin/verify-commit.c             | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 command-list.txt                    |  1 +
 commit.c                            |  1 +
 git.c                               |  1 +
 gpg-interface.c                     | 14 ++++++
 gpg-interface.h                     |  2 +
 pretty.c                            |  3 +-
 t/            | 20 +++++++-
 12 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/git-verify-commit.txt
 create mode 100644 builtin/verify-commit.c


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to