Re: why is tagger header optional?

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Jan 19, 2010, 06:37 UTC
Message-ID: <20100119063743.GD23212@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vfx62bo0i.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> > So why is it legal to omit the tagger header from a tag?
> >> >
> >> > E.g. the Linux kernel tag v2.6.12 has no tagger header:
> >> 
> >> We didn't.add tagger line until c818566 ([PATCH] Update tags to record who
> >> made them, 2005-07-14), which is v0.99.1~9
> >> 
> >> Linux 2.6.12 is a lot older than that.  v2.6.13-rc4 in late July is the
> >> first one with tagger.
> >
> > Ugh.  So its like the 100640 or whatever mode tags in the kernel
> > trees that are also considered bogus by today's standards, but have
> > to be allowed because of the kernel history.
> 
> Yeah; don't we have "fsck --strict" or something to take the distinction
> into account, though?  I don't recall if lack of tagger triggers the check
> offhand and I am too lazy to check.

I don't think it does under --strict. But yea, we do have --strict for the non-kernel repositories.

This came up because Gerrit Code Review asks JGit to do fsck during receive of objects from a client, JGit's tag fsck is too strict and demands a "tagger " header, but someone was trying to push this old tag from the Linux kernel into an empty repository.

I'll have to relax our tag fsck code in JGit and make the header optional.

-- 
Shawn.