Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933669Ab3CLVrn (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:47:43 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:57571 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933648Ab3CLVrl (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:47:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ctGvM9WZbjVTiLnoysS3vo8TTJP3ZuTY QUAOLzmp5xgByaSbz+YWLp6NtzQAJDDM6jj82L8AKkqlQcG2r4Xe4uYWwYszl3LN 1Kimzauy7yuhE2CgeHv/vPAr6K06poYjlsRa+9icOT7Dw7OJtDwzaSGylW7mrodD g+5t9PergXQ= From: Junio C Hamano To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , James Morris , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: unneeded merge in the security tree References: <20130312100950.e45ef0e721492ff0d5fd7c8d@canb.auug.org.au> <20130312041641.GE18595@thunk.org> <20130312212027.GE14792@thunk.org> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:47:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:28:39 -0700") Message-ID: <7vppz45lz9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 76690B42-8B5E-11E2-829A-26A52E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1013 Lines: 19 Linus Torvalds writes: > - I do think that we might want a "--no-signatures" for the specific > case of merging signed tags without actually taking the signature > (because it's a "upstream" repo). The "--ff-only" thing is *too* > strict. Sometimes you really do want to merge in new code, disallowing > it entirely is tough. 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/