Re: [Arx-users] Playing with sig command

[Kevin Smith]

Walter Landry wrote:
> Kevin Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I'll be interested to see this fix. I just fixed the silent failure of
> > the "browse" command locally, and there didn't seem to be a general
> > place to fix it that would have affected other commands. I'll look at
> > what you did...
>
> I made a check in recursive_browse.hpp.

I see that. At a glance, it looked like a nice bit of refactoring.

> I don't know how to prevent this case, since I would guess that you
> signed a few revisions manually but quickly tired of typing in your
> password.

I guess you're right. About all we can do is document that you probably 
don't want to start the process unless you have a key agent installed.

> Right now, "sig --add" will overwrite all existing signatures.  It
> wouldn't be too hard to only add signatures where they don't exist.

Seems like a nice long-term change. Not critical.

> > Also, I would argue that deleting keys from archives, and deleting
> > signatures from items this should probably prompt "are you sure?" unless
> > --force is specified (Unless they are deleting a signature made by a key
> > that has already been removed from the archive). These operations are
> > almost never what the user would actually want to do, and are not easily
> > reversible.
>
> I am not entirely sure that it will be a disaster if you delete
> signatures.  For the single user case, it certainly doesn't matter.
> The multi-user case is probably rare enough right now such that we can
> worry about it when we get feedback.

You're probably right about deleting individual signatures. I still 
think adding --force options to deleting a key, and to the revision 
delete commands would be a good thing. Lower priority than several items 
on your TODO list, but important for user friendliness.

> Plus, the sig command is really something that should be rarely used.

Amen.

Kevin