From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE671F462 for ; Sun, 26 May 2019 20:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726253AbfEZUth (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 May 2019 16:49:37 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f51.google.com ([209.85.167.51]:34059 "EHLO mail-lf1-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725836AbfEZUth (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 May 2019 16:49:37 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id v18so10602847lfi.1 for ; Sun, 26 May 2019 13:49:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IJg/yCjfVM3Ozhpb5ZCNN4WebegqjDbfI7FMAeP5e48=; b=GD3ZVbCtAZQtaJFSDPqrCMmGJBcOkN8aadPzlAK4DlrCkWV1mtFgYPxuS4XgVoIFNB 07DttpIS7YSA6RHknmleBz7ZadImeyD5hn2YsmsOhxL1gJeJcYNAfteCCxReSzZW5Sy7 HXffCAFYiq7pFrgWGoGWbWSP6Y+fjHTJprbE0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IJg/yCjfVM3Ozhpb5ZCNN4WebegqjDbfI7FMAeP5e48=; b=nsl+hi1X+CpWThDJljumJbL0duFn5TrPvNbl4CXvzhevP5V4Ek4HvbDyTnaoxkxQk2 WABsCUllKic+7qoC0NPZ+ch3K4i+CY3Btc+X4nTVsiwBPovTfFG3a/QE2TRxPm20pAPn uknK19O+oTU1FJfif/RBIcNdKUwmIQY6KRboShBiQPqQCRS5fd5tTyAFAix5O7Ll6mv8 OiMyepio7ePrEU6X5yHRfxQtvhNGqyZfkTpkVOCpb1iExtYGLbzGnzhe6rWQcQnliR75 HERTNvXR7ATLwqoHMHneDFkgt/N7xyWDJPg5cd7s3S6Qrus8Fq3sZb93O/0XrCino21E tf4A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWpvSXxH9LGFy/sUcort5uKuX8C9VdPmdUgXG//oWPy0PKzcuJj KWs05N5lt16hCZuEWRZ1+mSAOYkcGqE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3k2/nySSrPzGa9H28yN+yF6X5uuDGVpnh0W1oXydLT9fIHBWj9lR6wB2h9G3h55GK8Uh9vg== X-Received: by 2002:a19:7716:: with SMTP id s22mr843027lfc.64.1558903774285; Sun, 26 May 2019 13:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com. [209.85.167.53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j69sm2185084ljb.72.2019.05.26.13.49.33 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2019 13:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id n22so2858355lfe.12 for ; Sun, 26 May 2019 13:49:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a19:521a:: with SMTP id m26mr10136807lfb.134.1558903772902; Sun, 26 May 2019 13:49:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1558864555-53503-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <2d55fd2a-afbf-1b7c-ca82-8bffaa18e0d0@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <2d55fd2a-afbf-1b7c-ca82-8bffaa18e0d0@redhat.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 13:49:16 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM changes for Linux 5.2-rc2 To: Paolo Bonzini , Junio Hamano C Cc: Linux List Kernel Mailing , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , KVM list , Git List Mailing 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 Sun, May 26, 2019 at 10:53 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > The interesting thing is that not only git will treat lightweight tags > like, well, tags: Yeah, that's very much by design - lightweight tags are very comvenient for local temporary stuff where you don't want signing etc (think automated test infrastructure, or just local reminders). > In addition, because I _locally_ had a tag object that > pointed to the same commit and had the same name, git-request-pull > included my local tag's message in its output! I wonder if this could > be considered a bug. Yeah, I think git request-pull should at least *warn* about the tag not being the same object locally as in the remote you're asking me to pull. Are you sure you didn't get a warning, and just missed it? But adding Junio and the Git list just as a possible heads-up for this in case git request-pull really only compares the object the tag points to, rather than the SHA1 of the tag itself. Linus