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,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,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 6DAD120248 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 02:32:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726732AbfDLCc3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:32:29 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:33177 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726682AbfDLCc2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:32:28 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id q1so9915528wrp.0 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:32:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bFzsJapnKGQWuOeFqXjcCjwPetdozVS2NgAxZT9Ag0o=; b=HnZtg5v39JoxuuS8QarMnaMIsclD3+oPdaDk53++H7afj6vjxv0SWoMxeN+T/ZnEGV H71bZ2BMx0C0UZKq59olkbVy57yJ6zlcNaX2bM2numtDjJMHihJmj1aAWTXgsFudPigd /IsLzILW6NXkkgQkBK9jbZI/an4+/CIWBXs/lLpG2Kh+T0m7m5u34XLpCnTixk7I0wcz Cru6Pc1QgqjkrE9eBaGjkX1AKJ0MR8jnoUU7dEy4seoppv8NBJjArtjQCIGa/BpuHJgV IJy6DeFC/pRCeqMkmwf4y6+OgOWV3CaMs9bRj8SyQl2OClVFgRzhzghpYPhZEmZv+dkY yZMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bFzsJapnKGQWuOeFqXjcCjwPetdozVS2NgAxZT9Ag0o=; b=UDtaBrlD2YyeR3Tizmx8B7DZelwG7gOYtxeXcMPfxVhPX/BDcn1U1dcBjNg5AeWMNp o8Zv71v6KGTVJqzaQti4M8R2VuIHdNOil2lMSVUJt2Mx15fpUvwSErjkp6zDLPyjxvc6 bU4SqPgoE+6rScXowSHHKluD24lOEYRh5HHwVr8/NTrl0+xGe+ljcuOJ2FS2qHlkaeGQ lL5J0BbMrJWHLh7ZzMddVD5p76LD7acBEYgUCe23oi6orzGXwpjEHkrZgvw2GG7yb2h/ xtkW/fI+cQMI9YZ0A1ySpKyMsXvDajRK/8U6V3rBJNeDSEmdX4S2v42hVobC2Sm3SCSJ sopQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUj0KkwPkx8jxrc9NqndSXBFlpkhcqkOYC5jUD7ZLUCPBfJUDiu UVF11VPr7XgyUNbd61/8PN0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLEsqtn1lhqx8J1B5AyEPj39Mfq+7jrRoj61GBcIDCY/WbgzqgUOHtstcdEw9Xi4G2hXdy5g== X-Received: by 2002:adf:dc4a:: with SMTP id m10mr32825737wrj.0.1555036346834; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (141.255.76.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.76.255.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h2sm61087721wro.11.2019.04.11.19.32.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:32:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King 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 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> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:32:25 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20190411182903.GA32528@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:29:03 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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.