----- Original Message -----
> From: "Junio C Hamano" <[email protected]>
> To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "git" <[email protected]>, "Jonathan Nieder" <[email protected]>,
> "Johannes Schindelin"
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 6:25:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tag: add tag.gpgSign config option to force all tags
> be GPG-signed
> Tigran Mkrtchyan <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> As many CI/CD tools don't allow to control command line options when
>> executing `git tag` command, a default value in the configuration file
>> will allow to enforce tag signing if required.
Must of them blindly execute git commands with some hard-coded combination of
options. It's clear to me, that they are the source of the problem, but
git can be the solution.
>
> Hmm. Would these "many" tools still allow arbigrary configuration
> set to affect their operation? It sounds like a bigger issue but it
> is a separate one.
>
>> The new config-file option tag.gpgSign enforces signed tags. Additional
>> ...
>> will skip the signing step.
>
> This paragraph is well written.
>
>> The combination of -u <key-id> and --no-sign not allowed.
>
> This sentence lacks a verb. Perhaps s/not allowed/is &/.
>
Jup. Sorry.
> But more importantly, I think we should justify why this "not
> allowed" makes sense as the design of the feature. A plausible
> alternative design would simply follow the "last one wins" paradigm,
> where
>
> git tag -u key # "-u key" implies "-s"
>
> git tag -u key --no-sign # "--no-sign' trumps the implied "-s"
>
> git tag --no-sign -u key # "-u key"'s implication of "-s" trumps the
> # earlier "--no-sign"
>
> and having "[tag] gpgsign" simply adds to the implication early in
> the chain to be overridden by later command line options.
>
> Let's explain why "you cannot give -u <key> and --no-sign at the
> same time" is better than "the last one wins".
This is matter of convention. I never pay attention to the order of options
on the git command line, but I don't put conflicting options either, I hope.
Does git already have position depended options? If yes, then fine with me.
Otherwise, I don't want to introduce ambiguity. Yes, less ambiguity is my
answer to why it's better than "the last one wins".
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt
>> index a74e7b926d..2e5599a67f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt
>> @@ -64,6 +64,13 @@ OPTIONS
>> -s::
>> --sign::
>> Make a GPG-signed tag, using the default e-mail address's key.
>> + The default behavior of tag GPG-signing is controlled by `tag.gpgSign`
>> + configuration variable if it exists, or disabled oder otherwise.
>> + See linkgit:git-config[1].
>> +
>> +--no-sign::
>> + Override `tag.gpgSign` configuration variable that is
>> + set to force each and every tag to be signed.
>>
>> -u <keyid>::
>> --local-user=<keyid>::
>
> If we justify "-u and --no-sign do not mix", that design needs to be
> explained to the end users in the documentation, not just in the
> proposed log messsage.
Make sense.
Thanks,
Tigran.
