From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] tag -d: print sha1 of deleted tag Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:36:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20091210133645.GA2149@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <87ljhb87nj.fsf@jondo.cante.net> <3b0a7bfa75126e4c13ec15a4357645b2bfd14b5b.1260447713.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20091210124929.GA444@coredump.intra.peff.net> <4B20F733.6010401@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jari Aalto , Junio C Hamano To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 10 14:36:57 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NIjCS-0005TZ-KY for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:36:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758681AbZLJNgp (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:36:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758652AbZLJNgp (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:36:45 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:57415 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751692AbZLJNgo (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:36:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 23307 invoked by uid 107); 10 Dec 2009 13:41:22 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:41:22 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:36:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B20F733.6010401@drmicha.warpmail.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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