Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] gpg-interface: introduce new config to select per gpg format program

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:56:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

I'm okay with us forcing "openpgp".  That seems sane enough for now, and
if people scream loudly, we can loosen it.

Well, I specifically meant "are you sure subsections like this are a
good idea". But it seems like people think so?

I admit that I did not even consider that there may be better tool
than using subsections to record this information.  What are the
possibilities you have in mind (if you have one)?

I don't think there is another tool except two-level options, like
"gpg.openpgpprogram" and "gpg.x509program".

Although those are a bit ugly, I just wondered if they might make things
simpler, since AFAIK we are not planning to add more config options
here. Like gpg.x509.someotherflag, nor gpg.someothertool.program.

Of course one reason _for_ the tri-level is that we might one day add
gpg.x509.someotherflag, and this gives us room to do it with less
awkwardness (i.e., a proliferation of gpg.x509someflag options).

Yes, and signingtool.<name>.<key> is probably a good (ultra-)long
term direction.  Preparing the code may be quite a lot of work that
nobody may be interested in, and nothing other than the GPG family
might materialize for a long time, but if we can cheaply prepare
external interface less dependent on GPG/PGP, that by itself would
be a good thing to have, I would guess.

Thanks.