From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (mail-out.m-online.net [212.18.0.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A886ABA3D for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 20:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.18.0.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749500138; cv=none; b=lJXFPbK1JW7SzEXflVzAJxkIOiqrwV+7+0Y/k9nZ2isBRMIDiJc659NvyXAOXWMjx/eB+m1r7pFhqi2Qahp37I08isXOfZVek5gCTn81COREHPyPnZzLIyAr14prI4x3kFwfWRqJKM3DJ4tJ22bHHH468r7UE39Jm39ES3i+Pk4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749500138; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rxY+KFpIDyRMPhXYTcOMuD6l2VmJEqpGZgWzplF2tqM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tnhOADTv/LjGdsjWqJz9N7YK6NrFvrEgSCN55FsvNmh/jqLlH1rDMfQmEOfFEI419ovNcrZsUoGPSEqxxx6M2oyubgNxha+zQNkf5f3sk6BYEykE+vr+bmYFkvdQ/SE5AGOaqS7sbH1T6jBJi5prPxU5VXtQWZoN3TfwQ3+9tAs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-m68k.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nefkom.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.18.0.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-m68k.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nefkom.net Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bGNT83NkVz1sG88; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:15:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.68]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bGNT832ghz1qqlW; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:15:24 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.68]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id RRk1JrOgU0z1; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:15:14 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Info: 67PxxHYEvKn6a6n4ixeAzzOhamd09j/a0NetKOj7kILY1h7pGb5nhbfNdCwvoIoR Received: from igel.home (aftr-82-135-83-169.dynamic.mnet-online.de [82.135.83.169]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:15:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 493C22C194F; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:15:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Hilco Wijbenga Cc: Junio C Hamano , M Hickford , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Suggestion: error "tag ... already exists" should distinguish between tagging different or same commit: In-Reply-To: (Hilco Wijbenga's message of "Mon, 9 Jun 2025 12:37:41 -0700") References: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:15:14 +0200 Message-ID: <87qzzsisdp.fsf@igel.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Jun 09 2025, Hilco Wijbenga wrote: > Does it really make sense for that first example to fail, though? "git > tag hello v1.9.5" is an idempotent operation, isn't it? The second > attempt is a no-op? That's not true if an annotated tag is replaced by a lightweight tag. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 "And now for something completely different."