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 git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to