{"thread":{"id":"29369","subject":"Signed tags in octopus merge..","startedAt":"2012-01-14T21:30:11Z","lastAt":"2012-01-17T03:31:19Z","messageCount":6,"participants":["Linus Torvalds","Junio C Hamano","Jacob Helwig"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"182564","messageId":"CA+55aFzRN2F5PZDZPRmbj9occZwA6E6Pi+S+M_Qq2EfS6sctyA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"29369","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Signed tags in octopus merge..","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","sentAt":"2012-01-14T21:30:11Z","receivedAt":"2012-01-14T21:30:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"Just a heads-up and congrats: octopus merges of signed tags work well,\nand did exactly the RightThing(tm), both at merge time and with\n\"--show-signature\".\n\nI knew it was supposed to work, but I have to admit that I was a bit\napprehensive about it when I tried.\n\nCurrent top-of-head (commit 81d48f0aee54) in the kernel, in case you care.\n\nGood job,\n\n Linus\n"},{"id":"182570","messageId":"7vobu5wvda.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"29369","inReplyTo":"CA+55aFzRN2F5PZDZPRmbj9occZwA6E6Pi+S+M_Qq2EfS6sctyA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed tags in octopus merge..","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-01-15T02:30:09Z","receivedAt":"2012-01-15T02:30:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Linus Torvalds writes:\n\n> Just a heads-up and congrats: octopus merges of signed tags work well,\n> and did exactly the RightThing(tm), both at merge time and with\n> \"--show-signature\".\n\nHeh, thanks.\n"},{"id":"182642","messageId":"7vobu3uusw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"29369","inReplyTo":"CA+55aFzRN2F5PZDZPRmbj9occZwA6E6Pi+S+M_Qq2EfS6sctyA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed tags in octopus merge..","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-01-16T22:49:51Z","receivedAt":"2012-01-16T22:49:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Linus Torvalds writes:\n\n> Just a heads-up and congrats: octopus merges of signed tags work well,\n> and did exactly the RightThing(tm), both at merge time and with\n> \"--show-signature\".\n>\n> I knew it was supposed to work, but I have to admit that I was a bit\n> apprehensive about it when I tried.\n>\n> Current top-of-head (commit 81d48f0aee54) in the kernel, in case you care.\n\nI looked at it again, and it makes me wonder if we should further reword\nit to say \"side branch #1, tagged 'devicetree-for-linus'\" instead of the\ncurrent \"parent #2, tagged 'devicetree-for-linus'\". It looks very weird to\nstart counting from #2, when we know we will never show #1 there.\n"},{"id":"182644","messageId":"CAJ8aY1Hi47uyYSjAmtXfDEqgyc8T21WqXdEA0kGS7SQKxQ5b5g@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"29369","inReplyTo":"7vobu3uusw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Signed tags in octopus merge..","fromName":"Jacob Helwig","fromEmail":"jacob@technosorcery.net","sentAt":"2012-01-16T22:58:33Z","receivedAt":"2012-01-16T22:58:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jacob@technosorcery.net","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/6116efbbb00b1c0268cd76ce802f2caefdd52245a729e5ad3cf09fd3cf778002?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Linus Torvalds writes:\n>\n>> Just a heads-up and congrats: octopus merges of signed tags work well,\n>> and did exactly the RightThing(tm), both at merge time and with\n>> \"--show-signature\".\n>>\n>> I knew it was supposed to work, but I have to admit that I was a bit\n>> apprehensive about it when I tried.\n>>\n>> Current top-of-head (commit 81d48f0aee54) in the kernel, in case you care.\n>\n> I looked at it again, and it makes me wonder if we should further reword\n> it to say \"side branch #1, tagged 'devicetree-for-linus'\" instead of the\n> current \"parent #2, tagged 'devicetree-for-linus'\". It looks very weird to\n> start counting from #2, when we know we will never show #1 there.\n>\n\nMy immediate thought regarding the \"side branch #1\" version is not\nwanting to have to do the math (even though it's a simple n+1), if I\ndecide to convert that text into ^ parent selection notation.\n\n-- \nJacob Helwig\nhttp://technosorcery.net/about/me\n"},{"id":"182645","messageId":"CA+55aFzZXSCt1AwOotMZJ+GcNcJKL2OcsPOtaZ3=cvraJ=PD+Q@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"29369","inReplyTo":"CAJ8aY1Hi47uyYSjAmtXfDEqgyc8T21WqXdEA0kGS7SQKxQ5b5g@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed tags in octopus merge..","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","sentAt":"2012-01-16T23:06:41Z","receivedAt":"2012-01-16T23:06:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jacob Helwig wrote:\n>\n> My immediate thought regarding the \"side branch #1\" version is not\n> wanting to have to do the math (even though it's a simple n+1)\n\n\"Math is hard, let's go shopping\".\n\nBut I think even barbie could do the \"add one\" thing. That said, I\nthink the current thing is already more than good enough, and I don't\nthink it's at all confusing to talk about \"parent #2\". In fact, I\nthink it's more obvious than \"side branch #1\".\n\n Linus\n"},{"id":"182662","messageId":"7vfwfft37c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"29369","inReplyTo":"CA+55aFzZXSCt1AwOotMZJ+GcNcJKL2OcsPOtaZ3=cvraJ=PD+Q@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed tags in octopus merge..","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-01-17T03:31:19Z","receivedAt":"2012-01-17T03:31:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Linus Torvalds writes:\n\n> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jacob Helwig wrote:\n>>\n>> My immediate thought regarding the \"side branch #1\" version is not\n>> wanting to have to do the math (even though it's a simple n+1)\n>\n> \"Math is hard, let's go shopping\".\n>\n> But I think even barbie could do the \"add one\" thing. That said, I\n> think the current thing is already more than good enough, and I don't\n> think it's at all confusing to talk about \"parent #2\". In fact, I\n> think it's more obvious than \"side branch #1\".\n\nI think Jacob is correct to point out that mice are even dumber than\nBarbie and cannot do the \"add one\" thing, so let's leave the output as is.\n\nThanks for an amusing response.\n"}]}