On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:32:25AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 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.
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>