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=-4.2 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 67E261F462 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:46:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726527AbfFEUqM (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:46:12 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58534 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726305AbfFEUqM (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:46:12 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D70B6380A; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:46:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=hOt+FOMAYJMAVBAVu9zrZthHz4A=; b=uaw4cD LvLGVrwEJfTcGT3SyfhWFiBgvYa0fMvwBgmkxGTNdUJjKYp/xS9Bex4F+CxsX5GL YIJWWXfaHnNUUT+ksskPAGQ0/Y6YbJjl3jc5sjASPJS1vRVJtRU5J55W0uLTcixc +i0BemvCSs5cBuOJNMzBSDIKsyzG2xpPpVWG8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=BgHjAwttsbazmT+5IPnEgD1RTZLtPtJP tg2DhzIcuqt+ThFjOTT4bPkh4Ah9ljVd2ejsF5q2K8tCPTXV3duLPhRIx8plYmcw dPiPHg0XkPK4J/VhqmNhVfkJLjFCfyhz3GH9kBiJO8L5iGnfGIE26SQjxmBc4YCG SOQMCixjWwU= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BA163808; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:46:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4960963803; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:46:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Mkrtchyan\, Tigran" Cc: git , Jonathan Nieder , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tag: add tag.gpgSign config option to force all tags be GPG-signed References: <139144069.10140489.1559664262817.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> <20190605155300.26506-1-tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de> <1933659713.10490718.1559765529240.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 13:46:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1933659713.10490718.1559765529240.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> (Tigran Mkrtchyan's message of "Wed, 5 Jun 2019 22:12:09 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F15358F4-87D2-11E9-A2E5-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" writes: >> But more importantly, I think we should justify why this "not >> allowed" makes sense as the design of the feature. A plausible >> alternative design would simply follow the "last one wins" paradigm, >> ... > This is matter of convention. Oh, if you put it that way, it is quite clear that we should redo this part, as the rest of Git command line processing all pretty much follow "last one wins". I was mostly curious if there was any strong reason why this combination has to be different.