Re: [PATCH] tag -d: print sha1 of deleted tag

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:27:15PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:

> >   1. It is not immediately obvious to a user seeing this message
> >      for this first time exactly what the trailing sha1 means. We
> >      already had this discussion with "git branch -d" and decided
> >      that "(was DEADBEEF)" was more readable.
> 
> So, should we simply go with that then?

I think so. Jari obviously disagrees, but I don't have much more to say
in favor of it except that I find the other ugly and unintuitive. So it
is up to you what you want to submit and Junio what he wants to apply.
:)

> Meanwhile, RFCs/PATCHes crossed paths. I take it that Zoltan suggests
> giving the same output for force-overwritten existing tags. I beat him
> by 11 minutes, though ;)

Yes, I think if you are going to protect "tag -d", you might as well
protect overwriting, as well.  Which made me think at first that we need
something similar for "branch -f", but I don't think we do; the last
branch value will be left in the reflog (but with tags, there is no
reflog).

-Peff