Re: [PATCH] tag -d: print sha1 of deleted tag
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Dec 10, 2009, 13:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20091210133645.GA2149@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <4B20F733.6010401@drmicha.warpmail.net>
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:27:15PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> > 1. It is not immediately obvious to a user seeing this message > > for this first time exactly what the trailing sha1 means. We > > already had this discussion with "git branch -d" and decided > > that "(was DEADBEEF)" was more readable. > > So, should we simply go with that then?
I think so. Jari obviously disagrees, but I don't have much more to say in favor of it except that I find the other ugly and unintuitive. So it is up to you what you want to submit and Junio what he wants to apply. :)
> Meanwhile, RFCs/PATCHes crossed paths. I take it that Zoltan suggests > giving the same output for force-overwritten existing tags. I beat him > by 11 minutes, though ;)
Yes, I think if you are going to protect "tag -d", you might as well protect overwriting, as well. Which made me think at first that we need something similar for "branch -f", but I don't think we do; the last branch value will be left in the reflog (but with tags, there is no reflog).
-Peff