From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 04:00:06 GMT
Subject: Re: merging initial part of a branch?
Message-ID: <7v8xtkhj5l.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060113030837.GD27214@fieldses.org>

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:

> That's the only reference I can find to the "tag <tag>" notation, and
> it's a bit unhelpful as written.  (What backward compatibility?)
>
> How about the following?--b.

Makes sense.  Thanks.

Backward compatibility is that it was only either "<branch>" or
"tag <tag>".  When heads/branch or tags/tag came later,
supporting the separate word form "tag <tag>" was a bit
cumbersome but was done for b/c.