Re: [PATCH 0/2] Feeding an annotated but unsigned tag to "git merge"

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 7, 2012, 16:17 UTC
Message-ID: <7vhaunjdvk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120607090933.GB6087@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 09:37:52AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > This just doesn't make sense to me. Why would we treat annotated but
>> > unsigned tags differently from signed tags? In both cases, the new
>> > behavior is keeping more information about what happened, which is
>> > generally a good thing.
>> >
>> > I haven't seen any good argument against creating these merges[1].
>> 
>> It is in line with --ff-only special casing, though.
>
> Is it?  My impression from reading b5c9f1c is that --ff-only trumps both
> annotated _and_ signed tags. Which makes sense to me. What I was
> objecting to is that "some tag objects are more equal than others". It's
> OK to treat unannotated tags differently from tag objects, but treating
> annotated but unsigned objects differently from signed objects seems
> unnecessary and complex.

OK, let's drop it.