Re: linux-next: unneeded merge in the security tree

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mar 12, 2013, 21:54 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzWjfFjcRZXBO+edO7f66REA0pOsC3iZ2vYdHrkcovnHA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vppz45lz9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

>
> 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.

No, there's nothing really bad with adding the signature to the merge commit if you do make a merge. It's the fact that it currently makes a non-ff merge when that is pointless that hurts.

That said, adding the signature from an upstream tag doesn't really seem to be hugely useful. I'm not seeing much of an upside, in other words. I'd *expect* that people would pick up upstream tags regardless, no?

           Linus