Re: [PATCH v2] Add the tag.gpgsign option to sign all created tags

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:50:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

The `tag.gpgsign` config option allows to sign all
commits automatically.

I presume that you meant "all annotated tags" here.  But I am not
sure it this is sensible.

Yes its a mistake.

quoted

Support `--no-sign` option to countermand configuration `tag.gpgsign`.

So I do not see why you need a new --no-sign option at all.  If
you have the configuration and you do want to create an unsigned
annotated tag one-shot, all you need is to explicitly ask for "-a"
i.e.

    $ git tag -a -m "my message" v1.0

isn't it?

You know that when you have sign configuration enabled globally annotate is
implicite, so its difficult to join both world. I use same idea as in your
patch `55ca3f99ae4895605a348322dd2fc50f2065f508`.

If you are forcing users to always leave a message and then further
forcing users to always sign with the single new configuration, i.e.

    $ git tag v1.0
    ... opens the editor to ask for a message ...
    ... then makes the user sign with GPG ...

I'm not forcing this type of user to enable global configuration, that will be
annoying for them of course.
I tried to fix a need I have currently and this is a good compromise for me.

then I would first have to say that is a bad idea.

I can sort-of understand (but do not necessarily agree that it is a
good idea) adding new two configurations, i.e.

 - "even without -a/-s, force the user to annotate the tag" is one
   configuration, and

 - "even when the user did not say -s, force the user to sign an
   annotated tag" is the other.

And with such a system, I can see why you would need an option
"--lightweight" to force creation of a light-weight tag (i.e. to
countermand the first one).  You can view this new option as
something that sits next to existing -a/-s.  The current system lets
user choose among the three variants (lightweight, annotated and
signed) by not giving any, giving -a, and giving -s option
respectively, but with the "--lightweight" option, the user can ask
for one of the three explicitly, as opposed to using "lack of either
-a/-s" as a signal to create lightweight one.

And in the context of such a system, "--no-sign" may make sense to
override the second configuration (i.e. "force the user to sign an
annotated tag").

But otherwise, adding only "--no-sign" does not make much sense to
me, as it implies "not signing always means annotated", which is not
true.  It is unclear between lightweight and annotated which one the
user who says "--no-sign" really wants.

As I said it's difficult to easily join both world, as you know with
configuration and command line options. This is an override and if its really a
no go for this patch without refactoring this I will stop my work on it.

Just let me know I will send a patch v3 updated with tests after this.

Cheers,

-- 
Laurent