Re: why is tagger header optional?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 19, 2010, 06:35 UTC
Message-ID: <7vfx62bo0i.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100119063255.GC23212@spearce.org>

"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> 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.