Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] gpg-interface t: extend the existing GPG tests with GPGSM

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

While addressing 1 make 2 obvious and worse, addressing 2 is a whole
different story and should probably be discussed outside of this
thread. And i would not like to inherit responsibility for 2. In
fact the whole discussion emphasizes that it was a good idea to make
GPGSM depend on GPG, because it allows to somewhat reuse existing tests.

IMHO there is a big difference between inheriting responsibility for
something, and not making it worse.

Well said.