From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: How to request a fast-forward pull Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:22:05 -0700 Message-ID: <7vwr0sdute.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20120820202803.GA8378@windriver.com> <20120820204033.GA636@mannheim-rule.local> <20120821064138.GA3238@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, Paul Gortmaker , Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Bart Trojanowski To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 21 19:22:19 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T3s9g-0001EP-On for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:22:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758149Ab2HURWK (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:22:10 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:54312 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758022Ab2HURWI (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:22:08 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B83E70B2; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:22:07 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=IGTYQNcPg4sKgWE4Yh1/bjvVkvc=; b=onoUAr iQdqKEaxGprI49BGHRAKU8+Atko7kQNZUnWSwpYeh7PN+fVGaop/ZfOpicXFIZ0v LUHW7Gubz6pQyAPg+GcdoRlmMxVB3TERUxIuKa+3zguzd8POl7IJlctM3K1dF4nc RIZMlkZ5MpjkI0+1wF5TWnzwZjt7/9bXGz4LY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=TamUPbEiOP/zy/bJDhUIaVWJSMB3PQzg X7ayeLzW8LLPJBC6EWJT6lvHi/80Bke+9Rd193S4JHNhfy0YWFGqPpi7QJ9gKRWz SM6qZvOJ8gRzY+dYCh2oYx08TJSkPnooCAt4Ds+xMWk6f1yoIWJo3I6ZnuDMUHwY UuUfvqPqyf0= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1889C70B1; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [98.234.214.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68DFB70B0; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:22:06 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20120821064138.GA3238@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:41:38 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BB2C1714-EBB4-11E1-8ACD-01B42E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:40:33PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> > When you have a moment, would you please migrate this >> > across to your main linux-stable repository? >> > >> > Both a branch and signed tag are present and pointing at >> > the same commit, but "git request-pull" does favour output >> > of the tag over the branch name. >> > >> > But merging the tag will want to create a merge commit. >> > >> > So, to avoid a merge commit in your repo, you can fetch >> > (fast fwd) into your (local) branch from my branch at: >> > >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulg/linux-stable.git linux-2.6.34.y >> > >> > and then fetch the signed tag listed below after that. >> >> Can this be made easier? I could imagine request-pull learning >> --ff-only that generates a message like >> >> Greg, >> >> Please pull --ff-only Where did the "Greg,\n\n" come from? Isn't it just the matter of adding the "--ff-only" when that string is added? >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulg/linux-stable.git linux-2.6.34.y >> >> to get the following changes [...] >> >> which could work ok if the recipient notices the --ff-only, but I >> wonder if there is a simpler way. > > If it is something important for the sender to communicate to the > recipient as part of the pull command-line, then I would think the > natural place is on the line with the rest of it, like: > > Please pull: > > --ff-only > > It's maximally noticeable to the recipient, then, and anybody > cutting-and-pasting the whole line would get it automagically. That is > as close to machine-readable as pull-request emails get. > > However, I have to wonder if that is a good idea in general. Isn't the > decision to --ff-only or not really the puller's business? In the > general case, I would not expect senders of pull request to have advice > in this area. Yes, absolutely. The advice of the sender that would be more helpful is not "how", but "where"/"when". Is the topic meant for the maintenance track? Why is it appropriate to pull this series at this moment in the history of the overall project? > This particular case seems to be caused by a policy mismatch between the > project and request-pull. The latter's behavior to favor a matching tag > is because tags carry more information. But in this case, it sounds like > the project would rather avoid the extra merge commits, even if it means > losing information. That's a project decision and can be done by whoever is pulling, as you mentioned earlier. In any case, why is this even become an issue in the context of linux-stable? I thought people over there were working hard to *increase* verifiability of the history by using signed merges, while strongly discouraging to rebase history (which is wholly incompatible with insisting on fast-forwardness). I _think_ the original submitter meant to say "the whole of my work is based on your latest, so you _could_ fast forward", and did not even mean "I do not want to see any merge commit (or I understand you do not want to see one), and here is an instruction to work my pull request around". If the latter were the case (which I doubt is the case here, as it is a stupid thing to say in the context of Linux kernel project), your "mention the branch name instead" would make sense.