On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:58:07AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> I agree with you that it is too easy to create chaos by changing tags in
>> a published repository and that git should do more to prevent this from
>> happening without explicit user forcing.  The fact that git internally
>> handles tags similarly to other references is IMO an excuse for the
>> current behavior, but not a justification.
> I would have expected git to at least complain about updating an
> annotated tag with another annotated tag. But it actually uses the same
> fast-forward rule, just on the pointed-to commits. So a fast-forward
> annotated re-tag will throw away the old tag object completely. Which
> seems a bit crazy to me.
> It seems like a no-brainer to me that annotated tags should not replace
> each other without a force, no matter where in the refs hierarchy they
> go.
> For lightweight tags, I think it's more gray. They are just pointers
> into history. Some projects may use them to tag immutable official
> versions, but I also see them used as shared bookmarks. Requiring "-f"
> may make the latter use more annoying. On the other hand, bookmark tags
> tend not to be pushed, or if they are, it is part of a mirror-like
> backup which should be forcing all updates anyway.

Would that be an endorsement of continuing to build a patch set
including the snippet that Kacper posted earlier (1) in response to my
comment about not being sure how complicated all of this would be or

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/208473

-Drew Northup
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to