From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Many things pushed out to 'master' Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:19:00 -0800 Message-ID: <7v1wa3iquj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vk5nwu51x.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vabosse23.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vbq98jdy5.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 03 19:19:36 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IzFtA-0008Ao-8K for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:19:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751464AbXLCSTH (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:19:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751380AbXLCSTH (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:19:07 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:34659 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751338AbXLCSTG (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CAF2F0; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:19:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4A99C7C4; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:19:25 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:12:34 +0000 (GMT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > But I remembered that you requested a mode for signed tags where they > would just be copied. I just realised while implementing "verbatim" that > "ignore" does just that. Maybe we should rename this mode to "verbatim"? > > And maybe you want to make it the default (even if I think that this will > result in more surprise moments than the current mode which aborts). I did not hear others agreeing with me, so let's respect the original author's thinking.