Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Nov 4, 2011, 23:10 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzKPPqwGOe5Ov0FHF1DHbKmNhm=ePvcaY5uqR7cwFhQGQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v39e3bn1n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <junio@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>
> builtin/merge.c was updated to use want_commit() that uses peel_to_type()
> to commit to make sure we do not get fed anything funky, and also uses
> struct commit_list to pass around list of parents to be recorded, so we
> should be OK in this department.

I'm pretty sure people have already done "git merge v3.1" kind of things using local tags (where no peeling of FETCH_HEAD has been done). See

    git log --merges --grep 'Merge.*v[23]\.[0-9]'

for a ton of examples of this (and there's something odd going on: we have "Merge commit .." and "Merge tag ..", and I suspect the latter is people editing it to be correct by hand, but I dunno).

So this has always worked, methinks.

However - exactly beause git apparently makes it do that "Merge commit " message, I suspect we've peeled things too early and too much. We've peeled it so early that once again something thinks it's a commit, not a tag.

So if anything, I suspect "git merge" not only peels, but peels too much (or at the wrong point). We should probably peel as late as possible.

But it's a small detail.

                  Linus