From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: The Fox in the Shell <KellerFuchs@hashbang•sh>
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: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:46:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqa8l1ti8d.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160409200756.GA22694@hashbang.sh> (The Fox in the Shell's message of "Sat, 9 Apr 2016 20:08:39 +0000")
The Fox in the Shell <KellerFuchs@hashbang•sh> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I encountered some issues with the git documentation while modifying
> my deployment scripts to enforce that the tree being fetched was
> signed by a trusted key.
>
> It was unclear which commits needed to be signed (in the case of `git
> merge`) and what were the criteria for the signature to be considered
> valid.
>
> Here is a patch proposal.
>
> Signed-off-by: The Fox in the Shell <KellerFuchs@hashbang•sh>
> ---
I'll leave commenting on and suggesting updates for the above to
others.
> diff --git a/Documentation/merge-options.txt b/Documentation/merge-options.txt
> index f08e9b8..edd50bf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/merge-options.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/merge-options.txt
> @@ -89,8 +89,10 @@ option can be used to override --squash.
>
> --verify-signatures::
> --no-verify-signatures::
> - Verify that the commits being merged have good and trusted GPG signatures
> + Verify that the commits being merged have good and valid GPG signatures
> and abort the merge in case they do not.
> + For instance, when running `git merge --verify-signature remote/branch`,
> + only the head commit on `remote/branch` needs to be signed.
The first part of this change and all other changes are of dubious
value, but the last two lines is truly an improvement--it adds
missing information people who use the feature may care about.
I'd suggest doing the addition of the last two lines as a standalone
patch, and make the remainder a separate patch on top.
> diff --git a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> index 671cebd..29b19b9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> @@ -143,8 +143,8 @@ ifndef::git-rev-list[]
> - '%N': commit notes
> endif::git-rev-list[]
> - '%GG': raw verification message from GPG for a signed commit
> -- '%G?': show "G" for a Good signature, "B" for a Bad signature, "U" for a good,
> - untrusted signature and "N" for no signature
> +- '%G?': show "G" for a good (valid) signature, "B" for a bad signature,
> + "U" for a good signature with unknown validity and "N" for no signature
The reason I said the other changes are of dubious value is shown
very well in this hunk. I am not sure if it is an improvement to
rephrase "Good" to "good (valid)" and "untrusted" to "good signature
with unknown validity". They are saying pretty much the same thing,
no?
> diff --git a/Documentation/pretty-options.txt b/Documentation/pretty-options.txt
> index 54b88b6..62cbae2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/pretty-options.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/pretty-options.txt
> @@ -78,5 +78,5 @@ being displayed. Examples: "--notes=foo" will show only notes from
> endif::git-rev-list[]
>
> --show-signature::
> - Check the validity of a signed commit object by passing the signature
> - to `gpg --verify` and show the output.
> + Check the validity of a signed commit object, by passing the signature
> + to `gpg --verify`, and show the output.
The update one may be gramattically correct, but I personally find
the original easier to read. Is there a reason for this change?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-10 18:47 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 [this message]
2016-04-11 0:32 ` KellerFuchs
2016-04-11 16:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-04-12 1:00 ` KellerFuchs
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=xmqqa8l1ti8d.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=KellerFuchs@hashbang$(echo .)sh \
--cc=git@drmicha$(echo .)warpmail.net \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--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