From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git-tag bug? confusing git fast-export with double tag objects Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:40:43 -0700 Message-ID: <7v3ab6uuw4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v8wl01iev.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090514182249.GA11919@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20090515020206.GA12451@coredump.intra.peff.net> <4A0D8211.5010806@viscovery.net> <81b0412b0905150851q232b3f6s95df89e72d4dc381@mail.gmail.com> <4A0D9696.1040805@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alex Riesen , Johannes Sixt , Jakub Narebski , Matthias Andree , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Brandon Casey , Sverre Rabbelier To: Andreas Ericsson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 15 19:41:05 2009 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 1M51P5-0004rA-8n for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 19:41:03 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754950AbZEORky (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 13:40:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754758AbZEORky (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 13:40:54 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao103.cox.net ([68.230.241.43]:58535 "EHLO fed1rmmtao103.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753555AbZEORkx (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 13:40:53 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090515174053.WHZG2915.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Fri, 15 May 2009 13:40:53 -0400 Received: from localhost ([68.225.240.211]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id rtgj1b00L4aMwMQ04tguJs; Fri, 15 May 2009 13:40:54 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=lQuyK5o2kcMA:10 a=f4ZrQ2YIIQcA:10 a=UXqJC3FAQZbhPenqoScA:9 a=F-7gL-Wif_KivU9vagIA:7 a=CXQgHz-SHOCXq-BjPOfySU3gr10A:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 In-Reply-To: <4A0D9696.1040805@op5.se> (Andreas Ericsson's message of "Fri\, 15 May 2009 18\:21\:42 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andreas Ericsson writes: > Is it? Does it really make sense to have a tag named "foo" point to a tag object > that in turn points to a tag object without a tag ref? I mean, if you're signing > a tag, it makes sense to want to keep the original tag around so people can > reference it. If you want to *replace* a tag, it doesn't make sense to create > this chain which, iiuc, goes something like this: > > tag ref -> tag object -> tag object without ref -> something > > Honestly, I can see how this turned out to be confusing, as you end up with a > tag object without a tag, but a new tag in its place. Not to mention that the > new tag won't be push-able without --force in case the old tag was pushed earlier. Suppose the gpg key used to sign v1.6.3 somehow gets compromised, and I come up with a new gpg key. I could reassure people that the commit the old v1.6.3 tagged is genuine if I re-tag with the new key like this: git tag -f v1.6.3 v1.6.3^{commit} But what should I do if I would want to reassure people that both the old v1.6.3 was tagged by _me_ (with the old key that later was compromised) and that the commit that old tag tags is genuine?