On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:52:38AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > The one thing that does give me pause is that we do not seem to have any
> > way of accessing mergetag signatures. We should perhaps stop and think
> > for a second about how we might expose those (and whether it would fit
> > into the "git-verify-{commit,tag}" paradigm). I am tempted to say that
> > "git verify-tag" on a commit should verify the mergetag (right now it
> > would simply be an error). But I haven't though that hard on it.
>
> I agree that "verify-commit" that lives next to "verify-tag" is fine
> and does not have to wait for a unified "verify" that may not even
> be a good idea, but if we were to verify the mergetags in one of
> these "verify-$OBJECTTYPE" commands, I would think "verify-commit"
> should be the one to check them, for the simple reason that they
> appear in "commit" objects, not in "tag" objects.
My thinking was the opposite: it is a signature on a tag, but that
signature happens to be stuffed into a commit object. But I do not have
a strong feeling either way.
-Peff
--
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
