Am Fri, 6 Jul 2018 01:01:48 +0000 schrieb "brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net>:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:38:15PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > > Add "gpg.format" where the user can specify which type of signature > > to use for commits. At the moment only "PGP" is supported and the > > value is not even used. This commit prepares for a new types of > > signatures. > > We typically prefer to have option values specified in lower case. I > also think "openpgp" might be better than "PGP", since that's the name > of the specification and it would avoid any potential unhappiness > about compatibility with PGP or trademarks. Thanks for your input. I was assuming the names to start a discussion and i do not have a preference here. Let us wait for further comments on naming, i will then implement whatever the consensus is or what the maintainer requests. In fact "gpg.format" could be dropped and we could try both "gpg" and "gpgsm" and see where the signing-key is available. I decided to not implement that because gpgsm (unlike) gpg does not return an error when "--list-secret-keys" does not find anything. And we could have the odd case where both would find a matching key. In which case we would need "gpg.format" again to specify which one we prefer. Henning
