On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 9:20 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > tldr; 2 brief requests. Please > > - Be gentle to people and expect that it is normal for them to be > off of the list for a few weeks (or even more), not able to give > a timely comments; > > - Fully stand behind your own patch (unless it is an RFC), even if > some of the idea came from elsewhere. Ok I will keep these in mind. > >> Why would it need to say what type of signature it is? Don't the > >> ascii armor lines have e.g. "----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----" and "----END > >> PGP SIGNATURE----" around it, which fast-import can read as well as > >> fast-export? Is the idea that we strip those lines and now need to > >> replace the information we lost? > > > > In https://lore.kernel.org/git/aAq1nvcPRlIPal5l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > brian said: > > > > "These should be separate fields: one for the hash algorithm and one for > > the protocol. Alternatively, we can just keep the hash algorithm field > > and parse the protocol by reading the first line, which will differ for > > different protocols." > > > > It would have been nice if you had then said that you prefer not to > > have the protocol. > > Let's remember to be gentle for those who give varluable feedbacks > but may not be always on this list. A late comment on a topic that > has not hit 'next' is much better than a late comment after the > topic hits 'next', or no comment at all. I agree that the comment was valuable, sorry if it appeared otherwise. > Also, even if the idea came from somebody else, if you agreed to the > idea and made it part of your submission, then it would be better to > explain it in your own words, in the most appropriate way to answer > the question asked (e.g. the original from Brian and the question by > Elijah may have stress on different aspect of the problem). > > > My opinion was that it was better for tools processing fast-export > > output to have the protocol as they have to parse the "gppsig ..." > > line anyway. So it should be easier for them than to parse the ascii > > armor lines. > > And if you do not agree with Brian's, perhaps discuss a bit more to > (1) either convince yourself that Brian's idea is better and rewrite > your code to adopt the idea, or (2) explain the reason why your "the > importer reads and parses anyway" is better design and stick to it. I actually agreed with brian about "These should be separate fields: one for the hash algorithm and one for the protocol." Anyway it seems that we all agree now on this.
