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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 6, 2012, 16:37 UTC
Message-ID: <7vzk8gmm5b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120606134207.GB2597@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:58:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> But since I've written it already, I thought it might be worth
>> showing it to the list for discussion, if only to publicly reject
>> the idea ;-).
>
> It has been nearly a day, and nobody has publicly rejected it. So I will
> do so. :)
>
> 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. The argument against it is that "we used to fast forward", I would think, even though in general my reaction to that would be "so what?" because I agree with your "keeping more information instead of discarding as we used to is a good feature enhancement, why should we retreat?"

> [1] From the tone of your message, I think you are not the right person
>     to be arguing that side, anyway. It sounds as though you are not all
>     that invested in this series. :)

I am actually ambivalent; instead of being 0% supportive like I usually am for many topics, perhaps I am 30% sympathetic to this one.

This was triggered by http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/198828