On 2025-12-24 23:29:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Iustin Pop writes ("Re: Include git commit id and git tree id in *.changes
> files when uploading? [and 1 more messages]"):
> > If I would do a manual upload, and add these two fields correctly, that
> > is, Git-Tag-Tagger: my name/email and Git-Tag-Info: pointing to a
> > signed (by me) tag, I don't see how this wuold conflict with with the
> > meaning of the fields when filled by tag2upload. The signature on the
> > changes file would be mine, but that would be the only difference.
>
> If the archive accepted such an upload from you, you would be able to
> produce confusing information about who did the upload.
Wait, so the tags are not only about the contents of the package, but
also a metadata of "it was uploaded by tag2upload"?
I don't understand why the two are mixed (as opposed to a separate
Uploader-tool: tag2upload).
> > I.e., adding these fields for manual uploads (correctly), wouldn't break
> > the tag2upload protocol - it would cause a 2-step lookup of the signer,
> > but would point to the same signer.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> Tooling that isn't a service like tag2upload ought not to add these
> fields becase of the possibility that they would be wrong.
>
> These fields don't add anything useful.
I think Git-Tag-Info is actually a useful tag, aside from the manual
upload. And I think that's what the discussion in the thread was.
We can already guess for gbp how the tag is named, but no other field
(than Git-Tag-Info) points to the exact tag, unambiguously.
I'm not asking for a change, I'm just highlighting that it seems we lost
an opportunity. Git-Tag-Tagger could well be specialized to tag2upload,
but Git-Tag-Info or an equivalent could be generalized.
Again, I haven't followed the discusson, so this is just a remark, not a
request for change.
regards,
iustin
