Lucas Gabriel Vuotto <lucas@sexy.is> wrote:
> As the subject reads. There are 2 commits in here:

I don't have time to test or review the diff right now but should be
able to revisit it tonight. I have some comments inline though.

> - moving tag printing into its own function. I believe I did it in a
>   error-compatible way, but an extra pair of eyes are more than welcome,
>   especially because the new function signature is ugly.
> - adding the actual functionality, lifted from 'log -s'. And here, I
>   have 2 bikesheds I'd like to remodel:
>   - I added a shortened tag hash to the output, but idk if it's actually
>     useful, or if the corresponding commit hash is useful (if it exists?
>     I'm unsure if that's always the case). Or we can go with only 'date
>     tagname first-line-of-message'.

Good thinking!

I like the idea of emitting a hash purely from a consistency of output
perspective. I think the tag name must be unique and it can be used
wherever the tag hash is used, and a tag always points to a git object
with a hash, usually a commit--and if created with `got tag`, I believe
it must be a commit--although `git tag` doesn't constrain it to commit
objects. So maybe something like your suggestion of the commit id would
provide the most useful condensed output?

	$date $objectidpfx $tagname $tagmsgln

Where $objectidpfx is the abbreviated hash of the commit, tree, blob,
or tag object at which the tag points.

OTOH, it might be confusing as users might assume the emitted hash is
the tag hash even though the documentation would describe the output.

>   - given that -s is taken, I used -S for the sake of the patch. But I'd
>     prefer using -s here too, to keep it in-sync with log. Can '-s
>     signer' be changed to '-S signer'?

I, too, would much prefer making it -s for consistency if there are no
objections shifting current -s to -S signer; and uppercasing it would
also match with -V for verifying tag object signatures.

>   And I also have a question: I believe -V doesn't make much sense a
>   short output. Should I make -S conflict with -V? Or should we still go
>   ahead and verify tags, and add a simple indicator for whether the
>   signature is valid or not?

I agree with you: making them mutually exclusive options makes sense.


-- 
Mark Jamsek <https://bsdbox.org>
GPG: F2FF 13DE 6A06 C471 CA80  E6E2 2930 DC66 86EE CF68