Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> That makes me wonder if another heuristic I floated earlier is more >> appropriate. When merging a tag object T, if refs/tags/T exists and >> it is that tag

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> That makes me wonder if another heuristic I floated earlier is more >> appropriate. When merging a tag object T, if refs/tags/T exists and >> it is that tag object, then an updated "merge" would default to

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > That makes me wonder if another heuristic I floated earlier is more > appropriate. When merging a tag object T, if refs/tags/T exists and > it is that tag object, then an updated "merge" would default to "--ff"; >

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > That makes me wonder if another heuristic I floated earlier is more > appropriate. When merging a tag object T, if refs/tags/T exists and > it is that tag object, then an updated "merge" would default to "--ff"; > otherwise, it would

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > Yes, that's my pain. I don't want ff only when pulling from others, > only when pulling from upstream tree. > >> >> We may want per-remote equivalent for it, i.e. e.g. >> >> [pull] >> ff=false ;# good default for

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > Yes, that's my pain. I don't want ff only when pulling from others, > only when pulling from upstream tree. > >> >> We may want per-remote equivalent for it, i.e. e.g. >> >> [pull] >> ff=false ;# good default for collecting contributions >> >>

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Em Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:42:44 -0800 Junio C Hamano escreveu: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > And some maintainers end up using multiple repositories as branches > > (the old _original_ git model). Again, you can just use "git fetch + > > git

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Em Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:42:44 -0800 Junio C Hamano escreveu: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > And some maintainers end up using multiple repositories as branches > > (the old _original_ git model). Again, you can just use "git fetch + > > git reset", of course, but that's a bit unsafe. In

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > And some maintainers end up using multiple repositories as branches > (the old _original_ git model). Again, you can just use "git fetch + > git reset", of course, but that's a bit unsafe. In contrast, doing > "git pull --ff-only" is a safe

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > And some maintainers end up using multiple repositories as branches > (the old _original_ git model). Again, you can just use "git fetch + > git reset", of course, but that's a bit unsafe. In contrast, doing > "git pull --ff-only" is a safe convenient operation that does

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > But I wonder why "update to upstream" is merging a signed tag in the > first place. Wouldn't downstream's "try to keep up with" pull be > grabbing from branch tips, not tags? I'm actually encouraging maintainers to

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > But I wonder why "update to upstream" is merging a signed tag in the > first place. Wouldn't downstream's "try to keep up with" pull be > grabbing from branch tips, not tags? I'm actually encouraging maintainers to *not* start their

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > Maybe we could just tell people to have something like > >git config --global alias.update pull --ff-only > > and use that for "try to update to upstream". I guess our mails crossed. I admit that I indeed wondered why you were not

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > Maybe we could just tell people to have something like > >git config --global alias.update pull --ff-only > > and use that for "try to update to upstream". I guess our mails crossed. I admit that I indeed wondered why you were not giving your usual "downstream

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The reasoning is to avoid losing the signature from the tag (when > merging a signed tag, the signature gets inserted into the merge > commit itself - use "git log --show-signature" to see them). I think

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > The problem, of course, is that since git is distributed, git doesn't > know who is "upstream" and who is "downstream", so there's no > _technical_

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The reasoning is to avoid losing the signature from the tag (when > merging a signed tag, the signature gets inserted into the merge > commit itself - use "git log --show-signature" to see them). I think the commit that actually

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > The problem, of course, is that since git is distributed, git doesn't > know who is "upstream" and who is "downstream", so there's no > _technical_ difference between merging a development tree, and a >

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Em Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:15:04 -0800 Linus Torvalds escreveu: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > Linus, this happens a bit after the merge window, so I am wondering > > about the rational of not doing a fast

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Em Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:15:04 -0800 Linus Torvalds escreveu: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > Linus, this happens a bit after the merge window, so I am wondering > > about the rational of not doing a fast forward merge when merging a > > signed tag (I forget

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Hi Stephen, Em Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:00:36 +1100 Stephen Rothwell escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > > By merging the v4.16-rc1 tag into the v4l-dvb tree, you have created an > unnecessary merge commit. The v4l-dvb tree was already contained in > v4.16-rc1, so a fast forward merge

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Hi Stephen, Em Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:00:36 +1100 Stephen Rothwell escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > > By merging the v4.16-rc1 tag into the v4l-dvb tree, you have created an > unnecessary merge commit. The v4l-dvb tree was already contained in > v4.16-rc1, so a fast forward merge was possible, but

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Linus, this happens a bit after the merge window, so I am wondering > about the rational of not doing a fast forward merge when merging a > signed tag (I forget the reasoning). The reasoning is to avoid losing

Re: linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Linus, this happens a bit after the merge window, so I am wondering > about the rational of not doing a fast forward merge when merging a > signed tag (I forget the reasoning). The reasoning is to avoid losing the signature from the

linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Hi Mauro, By merging the v4.16-rc1 tag into the v4l-dvb tree, you have created an unnecessary merge commit. The v4l-dvb tree was already contained in v4.16-rc1, so a fast forward merge was possible, but explicitly merging a signed tag will give you a commit instead. In this case, you could have

linux-next: unnecessary merge in the v4l-dvb tree

Hi Mauro, By merging the v4.16-rc1 tag into the v4l-dvb tree, you have created an unnecessary merge commit. The v4l-dvb tree was already contained in v4.16-rc1, so a fast forward merge was possible, but explicitly merging a signed tag will give you a commit instead. In this case, you could have