Signing implementation currently not interchangeable (impl trait return)

[yanganto]

The return type of SignBuilder is a bug.

impl as a return type only helps simplify your type signatures
https://doc.rust-lang.org/rust-by-example/trait/impl_trait.html

It will not be a generic thing as you think.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52001592/why-can-impl-trait-not-be-used-to-return-multiple-conditional-types

Your project uses tab not space, but the Sign trait implementation is mixed with tab and space here
https://github.com/extrawurst/gitui/blob/5d68ea0e397ea65dce6c8aeb653b1c43918c78e1/asyncgit/src/sync/sign.rs#L122-L134

You don't like a simple and working solution #2047, but implement a buggy trait with unnecessary complexity to force me to follow, or want me to solve your issue for free and in silence.

[extrawurst]

The return type of SignBuilder is a bug.

impl as a return type only helps simplify your type signatures

Fair point, we can simply Box it and that's fixed. PR welcome.

You don't like a simple and working solution #2047,

I like simple but like I explained over there already: we cannot hardcode a solution that will only work with your branch, there was already the gpg-work ongoing for months prior that was conflicting with your work. Plus GPG was a far more requested feature than ssh-signing so it got priority.

but implement a buggy trait with unnecessary complexity

Seems like a fairly simple bug (see above)

to force me to follow, or want me to solve your issue for free and in silence.

No one is forcing you to do anything, I would suggest you check your tone here, we all work on this for close to nothing. The time I invested into providing this tool to you and the whole community for free far exceeds any donations (less than 1% of time invested was paid)

Of course I would like you to keep helping as you made a lot of valuable contribution over the years but you need to look beyond your own interest and show appreciation for other peoples work too