[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzKPPqwGOe5Ov0FHF1DHbKmNhm=ePvcaY5uqR7cwFhQGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:10:59 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <junio@...ox.com>
Cc: git@...r.kernel.org, Shawn Pearce <spearce@...arce.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <junio@...ox.com> wrote:
>
> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists