Re: [PATCH 0/2] Feeding an annotated but unsigned tag to "git merge"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 09:37:52AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> Is it?  My impression from reading b5c9f1c is that --ff-only trumps both
> annotated _and_ signed tags. Which makes sense to me. What I was
> objecting to is that "some tag objects are more equal than others". It's
> OK to treat unannotated tags differently from tag objects, but treating
> annotated but unsigned objects differently from signed objects seems
> unnecessary and complex.

OK, let's drop it.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]