On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:16:41 -0400 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 03:10:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > The top commit in the security tree today is a merge of v3.9-rc2. This
> > > is a completely unnecessary merge as the tree before the merge was a
> > > subset of v3.9-rc1 and so if the merge had been done using anything but
> > > the tag, it would have just been a fast forward. I know that this is now
> > > deliberate behaviour on git's behalf, but isn't there some way we can
> > > make this easier on maintainers who are just really just trying to pick a
> > > new starting point for their trees after a release? (at least I assume
> > > that is what James was trying to do)
> >
> > Yes, and I was merging to a tag as required by Linus.
>
> Why not just force the head of the security tree to be v3.9-rc2? Then
> you don't end up creating a completely unnecessary merge commit, and
> users who were at the previous head of the security tree will
> experience a fast forward when they pull your new head.
Well, you used to be able to merge a tag and it would just fast forward
if possible. That was changed (for good reason), but now gives us this
outcome. Also, "git merge --ff" does not override that behaviour, but
"git merge --ff-only" does. Also, of course, if (say) origin/master had
been v3.9-rc2, then "git merge origin/master" would have also just done a
fast forward.
I wonder if "git merge v3.9-rc2^{}" should work (git says "fatal: v3.9-rc2{}
- not something we can merge").
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgprDyQiLkvBd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
