On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:04:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:08:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> From: Jan Palus > >> > >> These all came as part of an earlier st/verify-tag topic that was > >> merged to 2.12. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > >> --- > >> > >> * This should be applied on top of 4fea72f4 ("t/t7004-tag: Add > >> --format specifier tests", 2017-01-17) > >> > >> t/t7004-tag.sh | 8 ++++---- > >> t/t7030-verify-tag.sh | 8 ++++---- > >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > Like 2/3, this one also produces test failures for me. It looks like > > "verify-tag" does not show a tag which has been forged. I'm not sure if > > that's intentional (and the test is wrong) or a bug. +cc Santiago > > It appears that the test expected a broken one to be shown, and my > reading of its log message is that the change expected --format= to > be used with %G? so that scripts can tell between pass and fail? > > So if I have to judge, the code becoming silent for a tag that does > not pass verification is not doing what the commit wanted it to do. > Yes, considering the test name is: "verifying a forged tag with --format fail and format accordingly" It feels as if the behavior of verify-tag/tag -v is not the one intended. I could add two patches on top of those two commits. Would this be enough? -Santiago.