Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:58:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> But since I've written it already, I thought it might be worth >> showing it to the list for discussion, if only to publicly reject >> the idea ;-). > > It has been nearly a day, and nobody has publicly rejected it. So I will > do so. :) > > This just doesn't make sense to me. Why would we treat annotated but > unsigned tags differently from signed tags? In both cases, the new > behavior is keeping more information about what happened, which is > generally a good thing. > > I haven't seen any good argument against creating these merges[1]. It is in line with --ff-only special casing, though. The argument against it is that "we used to fast forward", I would think, even though in general my reaction to that would be "so what?" because I agree with your "keeping more information instead of discarding as we used to is a good feature enhancement, why should we retreat?" > [1] From the tone of your message, I think you are not the right person > to be arguing that side, anyway. It sounds as though you are not all > that invested in this series. :) I am actually ambivalent; instead of being 0% supportive like I usually am for many topics, perhaps I am 30% sympathetic to this one. This was triggered by http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/198828 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html