From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 58AAA86245 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714410265; cv=none; b=dMTvM71TXqYepzt1BrJ52Z+6e4G81hJbJonQ5knJC5Yi5DYZnVj19oSlYSG4w0d6YPD3uYylbt6Lv7Jt5PZ3V4oTG3RTTl+/FhZde+rb6Aqd4d0bmXFjS9wU5r95m0A1FVr8BofrxzlaGHUvmJv6lGZneWqd4cx4x8OYkyPdelU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714410265; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0X38/j4ZpnAaABx60cAMMFo8Ilfejwv/R8Ke5KOA94s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LCknofFM6WhGvXzIuCUJBsESIgIrkQ/hIRkHLF+bv1SyfgK+DEjpThEmYdPtqEkn8hiOr5CRB3f5ngzqd67V9V1G+7MV5gSZEqzwR68O+vBYql69EorrMd8AR7j2G5Py+kjtmN13KgsyfcqQkN9MgBRxvs/egEbXsqaBCO+jRzo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=kXweJgYb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="kXweJgYb" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC48D3EBA4; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:04:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=0X38/j4ZpnAaABx60cAMMFo8Ilfejwv/R8Ke5K OA94s=; b=kXweJgYbpUjLXyAUNi+43S0dIuFyVvKYBRrZySYseXlfsnMHCBmBHp 2GtA2lRrKZzTjqLwuq9fNhyhjlK3xyD04FKe/OM18WtaeoRxnpaaxy9SS8JCjWjk 6Mrue5yrszk81hY+kdkaC6MBEF0IZrcoslyZmttWtm9An1nZc/hDk= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A3C3EBA3; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:04:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.120.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D30133EB99; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:04:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: John Passaro Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , John Passaro via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] builtin/tag.c: add --trailer arg In-Reply-To: (John Passaro's message of "Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:38:16 -0400") References: Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:04:15 -0700 Message-ID: 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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 83B4C4C6-064A-11EF-89FD-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com John Passaro writes: >> More importantly, I doubt that many trailers we commonly see in the >> comit objects, like "Acked-by", "Reviewed-by", or even "CC", are >> applicable in the context of tags. So I am ambivalent. > > A couple of words on the motivation here. First, by way of --list > --format="%(trailer)", > git-tag arguably has read-side support for trailers already; adding write > support seems pretty reasonable. Second, even though not all the trailers > broadly used for commits are an obvious fit for tags, some still are - > "Signed-off-by" for one would seem plausibly useful. In my team's usage (which > inspired this change), tag trailers have emerged as a convenient way to pass > machine-readable metadata to CICD. That is a good thing to describe in the proposed log message. If a reviewer feels puzzled by a commit and did not get the motivation from the proposed log message, there is a good chance that the motivation is not well described to help future developers who find this commit in "git log" output. Thanks.