From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] filter-branch.sh: support nearly proper tag name filtering Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:10:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1206031893-29599-1-git-send-email-casey@nrlssc.navy.mil> <47E298A5.6050508@nrlssc.navy.mil> <7vr6e01xja.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7viqzc18j9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Brandon Casey , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 24 16:11:27 2008 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 1JdoKZ-0004fG-RA for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:11:24 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760490AbYCXPKl (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:10:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760452AbYCXPKl (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:10:41 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:49224 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760474AbYCXPKk (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:10:40 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2008 15:10:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp053) with SMTP; 24 Mar 2008 16:10:39 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19WUCkGWo5WHLAtCDALlj6SsbyXVqTSETNmAeHU1h bA0GExtjibheZL X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7viqzc18j9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> If you tell filter-branch to filter a branch A and a tag T, as the > >> command is advertised to rewrite positive refs that were given from > >> the command line, isn't it natural to expect that the command would > >> attempt its best effort to rewrite such a tag object? > > > > The thing is: signed tags cannot be rewritten. > > I know that, and you know I know that if you read what you responded > again ;-) > > And I think stripping of gpg signature part is a reasonable best effort > for the command, _when_ the user told a signed tag to be rewritten. Yes. BUT. You can say "--all", and I actually expect quite a few people to do exactly that. And then you cannot really say "the user explicitely asked to have that signed tag rewritten". Ciao, Dscho