From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: why is tagger header optional? Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:35:25 -0800 Message-ID: <7vfx62bo0i.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20100119060946.GA23212@spearce.org> <7vk4vebo6z.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100119063255.GC23212@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 19 07:35:42 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NX7gh-0002zt-W0 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:35:40 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752891Ab0ASGfe (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:35:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751668Ab0ASGfd (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:35:33 -0500 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:39811 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750803Ab0ASGfd (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:35:33 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19629072B; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:35:32 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Dm1hNqzox43MHMs+bvAUaaaNves=; b=Abq6yr FRC7RVnt+D/vIF3d8aIj7mD0GpcxpAGVvyDxuS/tpAke4z/FvXjKAOZ5dLQOo4Mc wp1ZbO92Ny58XTra+MRsnGlbZdZoC85m1cEvfhUqtjBkQkMlAOfmLsQaEjGCBK1+ RzkGJN16dNSwMYbrUqwIkVAqWyxVkNagT14JM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=k4L42Nw9hwkj4InLwx/X555DufrNtnRQ ThiyXBIcRPEul9TjvKL054ZiTBvC4WwHxqLoFN1udi+5Bdx+9W90yEBb2skU6S5P 9qcZTFHqdv1yrztri2rpfUUJQWjsREaUhZ7wpmoG5TkFv6a32Ai5oDmjMRFucU73 YK5eICQEYxk= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A951D9072A; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBEA890729; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:35:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20100119063255.GC23212@spearce.org> (Shawn O. Pearce's message of "Mon\, 18 Jan 2010 22\:32\:56 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D6B3ECCA-04C4-11DF-8775-6AF7ED7EF46B-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: >> >> > So why is it legal to omit the tagger header from a tag? >> > >> > E.g. the Linux kernel tag v2.6.12 has no tagger header: >> >> We didn't.add tagger line until c818566 ([PATCH] Update tags to record who >> made them, 2005-07-14), which is v0.99.1~9 >> >> Linux 2.6.12 is a lot older than that. v2.6.13-rc4 in late July is the >> first one with tagger. > > Ugh. So its like the 100640 or whatever mode tags in the kernel > trees that are also considered bogus by today's standards, but have > to be allowed because of the kernel history. Yeah; don't we have "fsck --strict" or something to take the distinction into account, though? I don't recall if lack of tagger triggers the check offhand and I am too lazy to check.