Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:06:20AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
quoted
Such as v2.6.12-rc2..v2.6.13-rc3 in the Linux kernel source tree.
Insert a fake tag header, since newer `git mktag` wont accept the input
otherwise:
Hmm. Now your resulting tag will have this crufty "unknown@example.com"
header baked into it, won't it?
Should we instead make git-mktag more lenient (possibly with a
command-line option to reduce accidental omissions)?
That sounds sensible. Thanks for injecting a dose of sanity.
On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 08:50 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:06:20AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
quoted
Such as v2.6.12-rc2..v2.6.13-rc3 in the Linux kernel source tree.
Insert a fake tag header, since newer `git mktag` wont accept the
input
quoted
quoted
otherwise:
Hmm. Now your resulting tag will have this crufty "unknown@example.
com"
quoted
header baked into it, won't it?
Should we instead make git-mktag more lenient (possibly with a
command-line option to reduce accidental omissions)?
That sounds sensible. Thanks for injecting a dose of sanity.
Indeed. I'll add a --allow-missing-tagger option (suggestions for a
snappier name accepted!) and pass it unconditionally from the filter-
branch script.
Ian.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:02:33PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
quoted
quoted
Should we instead make git-mktag more lenient (possibly with a
command-line option to reduce accidental omissions)?
That sounds sensible. Thanks for injecting a dose of sanity.
Indeed. I'll add a --allow-missing-tagger option (suggestions for a
snappier name accepted!) and pass it unconditionally from the filter-
branch script.
I think that name is the right amount of snappy. It's not meant to be
used very often. :)
-Peff