From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: filter-branch: Remove original/* Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:26:39 -0800 Message-ID: <7vvdrbie7k.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <431341160902131845g58d99635ie0735b433802d6be@mail.gmail.com> <7vvdrblcl0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Kidd , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 15 22:28:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LYoX8-0008Lo-Dm for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:28:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753485AbZBOV0s (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:26:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753285AbZBOV0r (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:26:47 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:39170 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752655AbZBOV0q (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:26:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC49C9AAF8; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:26:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7ADBD9AAF7; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:26:41 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:47:19 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 58B6FC6C-FBA7-11DD-86DF-0433C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: >> Why? Most tags will be created once and will stay there. That is how >> tags are supposed to behave, isn't it? > > Exactly my point. In the common case, it does not change a thing. Wrong. In the common case, you will create tons of useless files that waste a disk block to store 180-byte or so perr each tag. > However in the case that we _do_ change tags, would you not agree that the > reflog is _the_ place to record the change? That merely means whoever changes the tag and wants the record of such an update, which is uncommon, need to make sure reflog is created for that tag (and that tag only).