From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D000D1F404 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:15:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754046AbeBLVPH (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:15:07 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com ([209.85.214.51]:34648 "EHLO mail-it0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751441AbeBLVPF (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:15:05 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f51.google.com with SMTP id j21so7492784ita.1; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:15:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=YIgpcCxQU1vE4Ff9ZQ/QyKiD9p/znGnKTnVC1SvXU+0=; b=aOFqcNBDcuLHyA23FUk/ZSmGQXRd6WjfloeW5yO0mb3wPtbouFkJehAvJ21ycfcuWj E314oB1BqEdXWrE9p7fARPJqDbz+9ZAKO65X26Jty9hO2X+TZ068DARUu5WOcJKfjkjZ ooNjezKXaTTqoM/sf2els5yCH2iSQnOeR+TBlOgaVgJ378ZKONw8w4NCzf4hJMqLHoAv rSiqI94f9xCuIdr3cwy8TokwrWyo1HZoKZhq0nO9mgeI0wjW97uUK9lEc0L+7VvX2jDZ IJE2P/daPlxPzG/YCZUNNaToFot+JHVZpLOImRX6QL4cKrHNUFnbrlwii2dMphBii6UC x6cA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YIgpcCxQU1vE4Ff9ZQ/QyKiD9p/znGnKTnVC1SvXU+0=; b=fqbdwgfPmm/UbffjplUtNAY8vWzroIyLvIfbGf5aj5lN5Djz3sTINiijFkdzbcv+7b 2Ti2EU6LjApsDoFZ+flLe6YvwMlIOwzdm5b8v3YRhbUhZoxOQ+95Qsw4XVJgwdPY7+Le +Weo4L7P9+opY/jfkCpM4xqKNsMy258V7Sc2xwk9c/pnbc8t88Drn6guYVZ9x+STTB9L +/53WcfUuqHi43c7p5+PqcTcGqJA8seInDM/xB2ceLt2lztwTh61+36SdV/4stYg/zjp LK0n2v1I2ADahGtWs1v+QSYjEpR8NOLPE+cfd6q2g6HcsVVE57+XPZQyO77gTbDo1xKg m7QA== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAst24YR485t3Kwckc82Gx5/2MA0lHQzI2MNH+NUBfsuT63vjEn hqxCZxvQJ5r70lxUHOxThJnxeGNAYNWVt4KS5cT3rQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225M6RUYVhMv2eFugdswImcqdLGK/M4ckBrlZwXO31xTmdOuLKInFTwAuIrdVP9sPpnOmbvRi0uXnfXiqeIxgYw= X-Received: by 10.36.94.199 with SMTP id h190mr6603644itb.21.1518470104821; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:15:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.135.221 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:15:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180213080036.3bf3a908@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20180213080036.3bf3a908@canb.auug.org.au> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:15:04 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HhhET1ykQmQ9TZ_zQOooMIkXTeM Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree To: Stephen Rothwell , Junio C Hamano Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Git Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Linus, this happens a bit after the merge window, so I am wondering > about the rational of not doing a fast forward merge when merging a > signed tag (I forget the reasoning). The reasoning is to avoid losing the signature from the tag (when merging a signed tag, the signature gets inserted into the merge commit itself - use "git log --show-signature" to see them). So when I merge a signed tag, I do *not* want to fast-forward to the top commit, because then I'd lose the signature from the tag. Thus the "merging signed tags are non-fast-forward by default" reasoning. But, yes, that reasoning is really only valid for proper merges of new features, not for back-merges. The problem, of course, is that since git is distributed, git doesn't know who is "upstream" and who is "downstream", so there's no _technical_ difference between merging a development tree, and a development tree doing a back-merge of the upstream tree. Maybe it was a mistake to make signed tag merges non-fast-forward, since they cause these kinds of issues with people who use "pull" to update their otherwise unmodified trees. I can always teach myself to just use --no-ff, since I end up doing things like verifying at the signatures anyway. Junio, comments? Linus