Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] templates: pre-push hook: check for missing GPG signatures
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:00
Sebastian Götte [off-list ref] writes:
On 04/24/2013 09:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:quoted
None of the above is part of a proper commit log message, is it?Fixed (I hope)
Don't hope, instead do. ;-) The questions I asked were not requests to explain them to _me_ in a response like this. They were the examples of what the proposed commit log message should have explained what the patch attempts to do.
quoted
quoted
-IFS=' 'Why?Otherwise in the for-loop below the output of the pipe chain is not correctly split by newlines. Also AFAIK, this is not needed: I think the default '<space><tab><newline>' is just fine here.
It is not enough to make sure that IFS has SP so that existing code works correctly; we also need to see if the existing code needs to avoid cutting the tokens at HT or LF. I think in this case using the default IFS is safe, as input to pre-push are SP separated refs and object names, none of which can have SP, HT or LF in it.
quoted
# Check for missing good GPG signatures git log --format="%G? %h" "$range" | ( exitcode=0 while read sign commit do test "$sign" = G && continue echo "Commit $commit does not have a good GPG signature" exitcode=1 done exit $exitcode ) let exitcode=exitcode\|$?
Don't use bash-ism "let". The above loop is a perfectly fine and readable way to write the logic, by the way Except that we tend to prefer $ret over $exitcode, but I've already said that. Thanks.