On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Didn't realize that... I guess I'm too used to named remotes.
>
> If so, just using a tag should be fine, no?
Yes, that's what I think. But the argument for using a separate
namespace is that
(a) you never get confused
(b) it would make it easier to make the 1:1 relationship between
branch names and these "pull request signature tags" without limiting
the naming of *normal* tags in any way
(c) they do have separate lifetimes from "real" tags.
But seriously, I don't care about the *implementation* all that much.
If people want to use the crazy git "notes" capability, you can do
that too, although quite frankly, I don't see the point. What actually
matters is that "git push" and "git pull" would JustWork(tm), and
check the signature if one exists, without having to cut-and-paste
data that simply shouldn't be visible to the user.
I abhor the interface Ingo suggested, for example. Why would we have
stupid command line options that we should cut-and-paste? Automation
is for computers, not for people.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
