Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> > Maybe something like `disallow_no_commit`? >> >> That would be the best name once we start dying in there. It might >> be still better, even while we merely warn but let it pass, than the >> double negative. Or it may not. I dunno. > > Actually, I should admit that I was really puzzled by the name at first. I > thought that some commits were impossible, but the function said that no > commit was impossible. So I thought: but what if a commit references > itself as parent, would that not be impossible? But actually, once SHA-1 > collision attacks become feasible, I guess it would not be impossible. > Making for an excellent attack vector, say, on repository hosting sites > (which would now be stuck in infinite loops due to a violation of the > temporal prime directive). > > So yeah, this was my thought process when I read no_commit_impossible. We both know that the original name was terrible now. It was meant to mean "it is impossible to honor --no-commit option", nothing more, and left the door open for deciding what should happen when that condition holds (either "warn but succeed the merge anyway" or "die to refuse"), but it is clear that the name did not convey that successfully. -- 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