From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F383E20248 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 02:33:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726785AbfDLCda (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:33:30 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:55912 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726636AbfDLCda (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:33:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 26830 invoked by uid 109); 12 Apr 2019 02:33:30 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 02:33:30 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 2543 invoked by uid 111); 12 Apr 2019 02:33:59 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:33:59 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:33:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:33:28 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=A1rbara?= de Castro Fernandes , Robert Dailey , Taylor Blau , Git Subject: Re: Feature request: Add --no-edit to git tag command Message-ID: <20190412023328.GA3779@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190404015744.GF4409@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190404032606.GA39148@Taylors-MBP.hsd1.wa.comcast.net> <20190404120613.GB22324@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190405222100.GA10787@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190411182903.GA32528@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:32:25AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 03:20:52PM -0300, Bárbara de Castro Fernandes wrote: > > > >> This new proposed --amend option, although semantically different, > >> would have a very similar functionality to the already existing -f > >> option. So should we, perhaps, change -f's behavior to treat the tag > >> as a new one, treating the old one as if it never existed (as I think > >> Junio was saying)? By this I mean the command should fail if the user > >> doesn't give a SHA-1 and the previous message wouldn't be preloaded. > >> --amend, on the other hand, would give the user an opportunity to > >> revise the tag by opening, by default, the editor with the > >> pre-existing message unless given the '--no-edit' option, and if not > >> given a SHA-1 it would keep on using the previous one. > > > > Yes, that's what I'd expect it to do (so yes, it's also different from > > "-f" in that it defaults to the existing tag destination instead of > > HEAD). > > Do you mean you'd expect "--amend" to do that, which is different > from what "-f" does, so they should not be conflated into one? > > If so, I think that makes sense and changing the behaviour of "-f" > is too confusing. Yes, sorry to be unclear. The "it" in my sentence was "--amend". -Peff