Re: linux-next: unneeded merge in the security tree
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 12, 2013, 21:47 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vppz45lz9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CA+55aFwHJtOU4Qzt3XZsER165kTc5P0ATQP2wPHvuUiVic8bnA@mail.gmail.com>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> - I do think that we might want a "--no-signatures" for the specific > case of merging signed tags without actually taking the signature > (because it's a "upstream" repo). The "--ff-only" thing is *too* > strict. Sometimes you really do want to merge in new code, disallowing > it entirely is tough.
I agree that "--ff-only" thing is too strict and sometimes you would want to allow back-merges, but when you do allow such a back-merge, is there a reason you want it to be --no-signatures merge? When a subtree maintainer decides to merge a stable release point from you with a good reason, I do not see anything wrong in recording that the resulting commit _did_ merge what you released with a signature.