The contributor opens a PR with signed commits, which you can merge directly (with a merge commit); I sign all my commits so PRs from me should be fine;
You need to rebase/cherry-pick the commits on the command line, with your key. By being the committer but not the author of the commits, the actual contributor still gets credit (will show up with the correct commit count on the contributors screen), but the PR will be shown as closed instead of merged.
In fact, a few days ago GitHub just introduced squash and merge, which solves the longstanding merge commits polluting history problem, but unfortunately, we'll never be able to create signed commits from the web interface for obvious reasons (GitHub can't have your private key).
What do you mean by "signed"? To me, signed == gpg-signed. If you mean --signoff, well, that's nothing, because as I said anyone can write "Signed-off-by: Arun Prakash Jana email@example.com" at the end of their commit message. Only the GPG signature is an actual verifiable signature.
if I use gpg-sign, will it force all contributors to sue gpg sign?
No. Each commit or tag can be signed or not signed, signed objects can be good or bad (e.g., signing key expired), but that's a local property, and signing one commit has nothing to do with future ones. As you can see there are already signed commits in jarun/googler's history (those from me), but you have been committing just fine.
--gpg-signflag to my git aliases, so why not.)
Hmm, I can't find your key on any keyserver:
> gpg --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --recv-keys C0A712ED95043DCB gpg: requesting key 95043DCB from hkp server keys.gnupg.net gpgkeys: key C0A712ED95043DCB not found on keyserver gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: Total number processed: 0 gpg: keyserver communications error: Not found gpg: keyserver communications error: Bad public key gpg: keyserver receive failed: Bad public key
Have you uploaded your key to a keyserver?
gpg --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --recv-keys 95043DCB gpg: key 95043DCB: "Arun Prakash Jana <firstname.lastname@example.org>" not changed gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: unchanged: 1
I'm reworking parser logic right now. Could you please let know what's the point of
if tag == "div": marker = self.url.find("?q=") if marker >= 0: self.url = self.url[marker + 3:] marker = self.url.find("&sa") if marker >= 0: self.url = self.url[:marker] if self.url != "": if self.url.find("://", 0, 12) >= 0: index = len(self.results) + 1 self.results.append(Result(index, self.title, self.url, self.text)) else: skipped += 1
The processing part is introduced in jarun/googler@c0808cf, but the commit message doesn't give any example, and after the modifications
self.url surely won't be a URL anymore, unless you percent decode it, then there's a chance, but I just don't see the point.
As for finding the protocol host separator, could you give me an example of it failing? The check was introduced in jarun/googler@d498c50 by the way, which says "Skip google news and images links", but even without this check Google News and Images results should be filtered out under Google's current layout, because they wouldn't survive our class guards.
http://www.thingiverse.com/search?q=Raspberry+pi&sa=. This was the format in which google used to give some result URLs to it's own domains or to nearest eating places, based on your location (tracking :D). However, I believe not to check for the google domain is crude.
helloand you'll find results from Youtube, Google Maps and Google Images.
g mnr-c g-blkrather than
g— i.e., the URL post processing code has no effect on that (youtube.com certainly can't be a relative link). When I parse classes appropriately, the result does show up regardless.
Currently parser logic is a mess.- I'm afraid it's true. The problem is none of the guys who worked on the parser (including me or Narrat) had the time to re-work it. So we built-up on it.
I noticed that some tests can be dropped and some can be made more rigorous- awesome. We'll figure out regressions, if any, during testing.