From: KellerFuchs <KellerFuchs@hashbang•sh>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org,
"Michael J. Gruber" <git@drmicha•warpmail.net>,
"Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste•ath.cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:00:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160412010009.GD9034@hashbang.sh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtwj8rtcd.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:41:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> KellerFuchs <KellerFuchs@hashbang•sh> writes:
> > The reason for the first edit is that “trusted” and “valid” are OpenPGP
> > concepts: a key is trusted if the user set a trust level for it,
> > and a uid is valid if it has been signed by a trusted key [0].
>
> OK, so it is wrong to talk about "trusted" and/or "valid" "GPG
> signatures" like the original one. We should say "... have GPG
> signatures that were signed by valid key" (not "trusted" key)?
Well, the GnuPG documentation also talks of valid signatures,
and it is a convenient short-hand:
https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gpgme/Verify.html
On the other hand, being more explicit here cannot hurt.
> Thanks for clarification. The distinction between trusted and valid
> should at least be in the log message and possibly (if we can find a
> good way to flow it into the description) added to the documentation.
Ok. I will have a second go at the patch (with the split you requested,
a more explicit description and an explanation in the commit msg).
What is the prefered way to send a second version of a patchset here?
Just git-email-ing it here In-Reply-To the first mail?
> Verify that the tip commit of the side branch being merged is
> signed with a valid key (i.e. a key that is signed by a key that
> the user set the trust level as trusted), and abort the merge if
> it is not.
I would rather see something like
> Verify that the tip commit of the side branch being merged is
> signed with a valid key, i.e. a key that has a valid uid: in the
> default trust model, this means it has been signed by a trusted key.
> If the tip commit of the side branch is not signed with a valid key,
> the merge is aborted.
It's unfortunately more verbose, but I don't want to make promises
about GnuPG's behaviour that depends on the user's configuration.
Best,
kf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-12 1:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-09 20:08 [PATCH] Documentation: clarify signature verification The Fox in the Shell
2016-04-10 18:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-04-11 0:32 ` KellerFuchs
2016-04-11 16:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-04-12 1:00 ` KellerFuchs [this message]
2016-04-12 15:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-05-13 9:51 ` Fox in the shell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160412010009.GD9034@hashbang.sh \
--to=kellerfuchs@hashbang$(echo .)sh \
--cc=git@drmicha$(echo .)warpmail.net \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=sandals@crustytoothpaste$(echo .)ath.cx \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox