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=-2.9 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 308D21F404 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932463AbeBLVhT (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:37:19 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:51715 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932204AbeBLVhS (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:37:18 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id r71so12250039wmd.1; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:37:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=fBoaAseK96R2il/Iay5CDvvHCfJL7RRVebQPkFsBaQw=; b=apf9Qn8OJGM77F9zL1QfPq0N/K/gBB1+tDwvsAqbRJuJftqUlW4X2o5bpWBsWZNDDS 4e7xRxWRg1hG8iTmyAyKeY67WN0fQqfrRlCqsh62fzPlVJt6vkYPUkM9G0Ua5sRpdkUO xwZazSLsCRBCp8B+4pe5l4b3p6l+Qx/eRGbQLDLF49KIu5bEuzCwMcBAGW43gDJeGRrq 8Tl3ENblGTlmiLxfxEeX9qk8IbJkUMT4GjQNRE6GApehW28tlyniCQgKFtagjQ2RTkeW uVy5QDZzwmyFpnd6Z5Vi0L4vBthmHyV1oGdGJIcX39ucWtKeebS41JD8rUR37nFY0pIX YD4w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=fBoaAseK96R2il/Iay5CDvvHCfJL7RRVebQPkFsBaQw=; b=leVgPF+ACnFRummb5uXDqlNcbDYoHagIRe7yqK4s9y33ZQPHq8Q5g8RXjPCExRndHe 6+qMEgk446RtRuKtCNYeNLqfIckBVy2m7Vt4uXAh9dLYH28EW46buXlgehGogr5VepA/ Z9IqD9Fau0EQNIYHsE6vRJ3LXZTtgPSK3PYUhgAeIquatmItdZffGuOPFLehoSbdyMQI x2cyHMT0KQJKhvNZM/d273S9xwzZ1x1uWdoQa6mQVwHUY9IIFjhGqk8UCimCe/nCDbc7 RctcfB7mTXlRDV2odheENqd12ENDVwc6ybg1rowrBn/u4KV1F57Gh2ttQDlbiQySN0El D+PQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCfY39MhBiwDMRNHrveokZJ080NAQkMYT4+dUVOA+by7RLtkvht hnxJwtjh8bdY51BBgBq8TGM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224bS5YjWj1HZWga/we3cQrdHp7f4RQiX9vFjDbTDr2kfFfxWQ390IMZ9KRyrS8SY4ZJWsanmg== X-Received: by 10.28.5.145 with SMTP id 139mr4291022wmf.89.1518471436070; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:37:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (112.68.155.104.bc.googleusercontent.com. [104.155.68.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y11sm8163514wrh.30.2018.02.12.13.37.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:37:15 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree References: <20180213080036.3bf3a908@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:37:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:15:04 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > 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? I have a slight suspicion that allowing 'pull' to fast-forward even when merging a signed tag when it is pulling from a configured default remote for the branch the user is on, and otherwise keeping the current behaviour, would make majority of people from both camps happier, but I also have a strong conviction that it is being too clever and making it hard to explain to people to do such a dwim that tries to guess which way is 'upstream'. Another clue we _might_ be able to take advantage of is that when upstream maintainers merge a signed tag, we do *not* fetch and store the tag from downstream contributers in our local repository (it is likely that we have --no-tags in remote..tagopt), but when downstream contributers sync from us with "git pull", they do fetch and store our tags in their local repository. So "git pull $somewhere $tag" that defaults to "--ff" when the tag gets stored somewhere in refs/ (or more explicitly, in refs/tags/) and defaults to "--no-ff" otherwise (i.e. the tag is fetched only to be recorded in the resulting merge, without ever stored in any of our refs), might be a good balance. And it is easy to explain: "We realize that it was a mistake to unconditionally default to --no-ff and we are reverting the default to --ff, but with a twist. When we tell 'pull' to grab a tag, if we do not store it anywhere in our local ref space, that would mean the tag is totally lost if the pull fast-forwards. That is why we still use --no-ff in such a case."