On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:23 PM Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I.e. the non-refs/{tags,heads}/* update logic treats all updates to
> > tags/commits as branch updates. We just look at the tag v2.18.0, see you
> > want to replace it with the commit v2.19.0-rc0^{} and see "oh, that's a
> > fast-forward".
>
> In my old message you are responding to, I asked what you meant by
> "will be treated as branches", and after seeing "as branch updates"
> above, I think I know what you want the phrase to mean, namely, that
> old-to-new transition requires new to be a descendant of old. But I
> think that is weaker than what other people (including me) thinks of
> rules to update refs/heads/* hierarchy (i.e. "branch update").
>
> You are allowing to store an object that is not a commit in
> refs/blah/my-tag in your example, so it clearly does not protect the
> ref with an extra rule that applies to "branches", namely, "it has
> to be a commit."
Indeed. This was all confusing. I've reworded in something I'll send
shortly, which should address this confusion.
> > Arguably that should be changed, but I won't do that in this series.
>
> OK.
