Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] cherry-pick, revert: add the --gpg-sign option

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:45:41 -0800

"brian m. carlson" <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:00:06PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "brian m. carlson" <[email-masked]> writes:
>> 
>> > +-S[<keyid>]::
>> > +--gpg-sign[=<keyid>]::
>> > +	GPG-sign commits.
>> > +
>> 
>> Does this accept --no-gpg-sign?  If not, shouldn't it?
>
> It does not.  I took Nicolas's patches from the list and applied them to
> master, so nothing from next is there, including the commit.gpgsign
> stuff.
>
> Would you prefer I rebased them on next instead?

Not really.

It is debatable if it should mean that the user wants to sign
commits that are created by running other commands like "am" and
"stash" when he sets commit.gpgsign to true, but even if the answer
to that question were true, the configuration must be overridable
with e.g. "git stash --no-gpg-sign", explicitly from the command
line.  Until that happens, the series with 2af2ef3c (Add the
commit.gpgsign option to sign all commits, 2013-11-05) cannot be
merged to 'master'.

A series that lets you specify positives from the command line
without any sticky configuration variable, i.e. these patches, do
not have to wait for that to happen.  So this series should come
first and then the "commit.gpgsign" ones can be rebased on top of
this series, I would think.