On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 11:40:27AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > I guess leaving it serves as a sort of cross-check if gpg would return a > > zero exit code but indicate in the status result that the signature was > > not good. Sort of a belt-and-suspenders, I guess (which might not be > > that implausible if we think about somebody wrapping gpg with a sloppy > > bit of shell code that loses the exit code -- it's their fault, but it > > might be nice for us to err on the conservative side). > > OK, this time a real log message. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] gpg-interface: propagate exit status from gpg back to the > callers > [...]
Thanks, the explanation and the patch look good to me. I'm on the fence over whether a follow-up patch to take away the "U" is worth it. In practice the code should never trigger either way, since gpg would already have exited non-zero in such a case. -Peff
