Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/builtin/verify-tag.c b/builtin/verify-tag.c
>>> index f9a5f7535a..ed8329340f 100644
>>> --- a/builtin/verify-tag.c
>>> +++ b/builtin/verify-tag.c
>>> @@ -56,20 +56,21 @@ int cmd_verify_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const
>>> char *prefix)
>>> }
>>>
>>> while (i < argc) {
>>> - unsigned char sha1[20];
>>> + struct object_id oid;
>>> const char *name = argv[i++];
>>> - if (get_sha1(name, sha1)) {
>>> +
>>> + if (get_oid(name, &oid)) {
>>> had_error = !!error("tag '%s' not found.", name);
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>
>> This part is already done, it seems, in bc/object-id topic, even
>> though other parts are not yet done?
>
> Oops. I assumed the latest bc/object-id would have been in master
> already, but after checking it is not. 967635dc3c2
> (builtin/verify-tag: convert to struct object_id)
> converts this part, although there are 2 differences:
> * I added a stray newline before get_oid
> * The argument to gpg_verify_tag is a sha1 or oid
>
> So yes, this produces a merge conflict. :/
That is OK. This actually shouldn't create any meaningful conflict.
Both try to do the same code, with only a blank-line difference.
As Brian said bc/object-id would be rerolled, I was wondering if I
should queue these two patches (even though I already queued them)
myself, or it would be better for you to send them to Brian to make
it part of his series.
