On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 01:14:40AM +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: > > Then I think it would make sense to allow the very specific no-date tag, > > but not allow arbitrary crud. I wonder if there's an example in the > > kernel or in git.git. > > I couldn't find any such examples. However, I did find several tags > with no "tagger" line at all: git.git has "v0.99" and linux.git has > many such tags starting with "v2.6.11" ending with "v2.6.13-rc3". Yes, I think Junio was mis-remembering the exact condition. It looks like we added tagger lines in c818566 ([PATCH] Update tags to record who made them, 2005-07-14), which pulls the identity straight from "git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT". I double-checked to be sure that we included the date stamp at that time, and we did. When parsing such a tag, we put a "0" in the date field of the "struct tag", and I suspect that is what caused the memory confusion. So I think we are fine to fsck tagger lines as we do ordinary author/committer ident lines; the only exception is that we should not complain if they do not exist. > It seems that `git cat-file -p` doesn't like such tags too – if there > is no "tagger", it doesn't display *any* header lines. More bugs? Yeah, I think we should just rid of that parser entirely. It is very inconsistent with the pretty-printer used by "git show", as well as the one used by "git for-each-ref", not to mention parse_tag (ugh, how many tag parsers do we have?). -Peff -- 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