Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 13:50:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:45:58PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
>> I sneekily fix this in 6/6... I thought 3/6 is on next already, too late
>> for a real v2. Otherwise I would put 6/6 before everything else.
>
> Ah, yeah, I assumed we were sti
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:45:58PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> I sneekily fix this in 6/6... I thought 3/6 is on next already, too late
> for a real v2. Otherwise I would put 6/6 before everything else.
Ah, yeah, I assumed we were still re-rolling (and it looks like you're
just on pu so far)
Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 13.06.2014 13:19:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:42:45PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
>> +
>> +free(signature_check.gpg_output);
>> +free(signature_check.gpg_status);
>> +free(signature_check.signer);
>> +free(signature_check.key);
>> +return sig
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:42:45PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> +
> + free(signature_check.gpg_output);
> + free(signature_check.gpg_status);
> + free(signature_check.signer);
> + free(signature_check.key);
> + return signature_check.result != 'G';
> +}
How about .payload
Commit signatures can be verified using "git show -s --show-signature"
or the "%G?" pretty format and parsing the output, which is well suited
for user inspection, but not for scripting.
Provide a command "verify-commit" which is analogous to "verify-tag": It
returns 0 for good signatures and non-
5 matches
Mail list logo
