Sebastian Götte <ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de> writes: > On 03/26/2013 02:46 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:> Sebastian Götte > <ja...@physik.tu-berlin.de> writes: >>> Rebased it onto the current 'master'. The second patch fixes that the GPG >>> status parser ignores the first line of GPG status output (that would be >>> caught >>> by the new merge signature verification test case). >> >> Thanks. >> >> Does it still make sure that it won't be fooled by the expected >> string appearing in the middle of a line, not at the beginning? > > I thought that would not be a problem until I noticed it checks for GOODSIG > before it checks for BADSIG. Here is a fix.
What does the order of checking have to do with it? I am confused... I was more worried about a case where you may end up misinterpreting [GNUPG:] BADSIG B0B5E88696AFE6CB [GNUPG:] GOODSIG B0B5E88696AFE6CB <y@xz> as showing goodsig when the signer's name was set to "[GNUPG:] GOODSIG B0B5E88696AFE6CB" The "\n" in the original was to make sure the expected message is at the beginning of a line. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
