Linus TorvaldsJust a heads-up and congrats: octopus merges of signed tags work well, and did exactly the RightThing(tm), both at merge time and with "--show-signature".
I knew it was supposed to work, but I have to admit that I was a bit apprehensive about it when I tried.
Current top-of-head (commit 81d48f0aee54) in the kernel, in case you care.
Good job,
Linus
Junio C HamanoRe: Signed tags in octopus merge..
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> Just a heads-up and congrats: octopus merges of signed tags work well, > and did exactly the RightThing(tm), both at merge time and with > "--show-signature".
Heh, thanks.
Junio C HamanoRe: Signed tags in octopus merge..
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> Just a heads-up and congrats: octopus merges of signed tags work well, > and did exactly the RightThing(tm), both at merge time and with > "--show-signature". > > I knew it was supposed to work, but I have to admit that I was a bit > apprehensive about it when I tried. > > Current top-of-head (commit 81d48f0aee54) in the kernel, in case you care.
I looked at it again, and it makes me wonder if we should further reword it to say "side branch #1, tagged 'devicetree-for-linus'" instead of the current "parent #2, tagged 'devicetree-for-linus'". It looks very weird to start counting from #2, when we know we will never show #1 there.
Jacob HelwigRe: Signed tags in octopus merge..
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes: > >> Just a heads-up and congrats: octopus merges of signed tags work well, >> and did exactly the RightThing(tm), both at merge time and with >> "--show-signature". >> >> I knew it was supposed to work, but I have to admit that I was a bit >> apprehensive about it when I tried. >> >> Current top-of-head (commit 81d48f0aee54) in the kernel, in case you care. > > I looked at it again, and it makes me wonder if we should further reword > it to say "side branch #1, tagged 'devicetree-for-linus'" instead of the > current "parent #2, tagged 'devicetree-for-linus'". It looks very weird to > start counting from #2, when we know we will never show #1 there. >
My immediate thought regarding the "side branch #1" version is not wanting to have to do the math (even though it's a simple n+1), if I decide to convert that text into ^ parent selection notation.
-- Jacob Helwig http://technosorcery.net/about/me
Linus TorvaldsRe: Signed tags in octopus merge..
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jacob Helwig <jacob@technosorcery.net> wrote:
> > My immediate thought regarding the "side branch #1" version is not > wanting to have to do the math (even though it's a simple n+1)
"Math is hard, let's go shopping".
But I think even barbie could do the "add one" thing. That said, I think the current thing is already more than good enough, and I don't think it's at all confusing to talk about "parent #2". In fact, I think it's more obvious than "side branch #1".
Linus
Junio C HamanoRe: Signed tags in octopus merge..
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jacob Helwig <jacob@technosorcery.net> wrote: >> >> My immediate thought regarding the "side branch #1" version is not >> wanting to have to do the math (even though it's a simple n+1) > > "Math is hard, let's go shopping". > > But I think even barbie could do the "add one" thing. That said, I > think the current thing is already more than good enough, and I don't > think it's at all confusing to talk about "parent #2". In fact, I > think it's more obvious than "side branch #1".
I think Jacob is correct to point out that mice are even dumber than Barbie and cannot do the "add one" thing, so let's leave the output as is.
Thanks for an amusing response.