Re: [PATCH 0/3] tag: keep the message file in case ref transaction fails

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 17, 2023, 16:00 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqo7mjq779.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20230517093214.GA527234@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> That said, I'm willing to believe that most users wouldn't figure this
> out on their own, and saving TAG_EDITMSG might be more friendly. But one
> other alternative might be to mention the hash of that tag object, and
> possibly give advice on recovering it.

Hmph, then the advice message would suggest "update-ref"?

Ah, no. Because the message may be reused to create a tag with different tagname, which is very likely because one reason for the refusal to update the ref could be that the name was already taken, and that would create a mismatch between tagname and refname.

OK, so ...

Show 17 quoted lines

> It's too bad we do not have "git tag -c" to match "git commit -c", which
> would allow us to say something like:
>
>       A tag object was created, but we failed to update the ref.
>       After correcting any errors, you can recover the original tag
>       message with:
>
>         git tag -c $oid [other options]
>
> (where we'd replace $oid with the hash of the created tag object). The
> best alternatives I could come up with were:
>
>       # this is kind of obscure advice to give somebody, plus
>       # it makes a weird tag if you originally tried to tag "foo/bar"
>       # but then later switch to some other name. The "tag" field
>       # in the object won't match the ref.
>       git update-ref $ref $oid

... I agree that this is not a very good advice to give, and ...

>       # this saves just the message but is horribly complicated
>       git cat-file tag $oid | sed '1,/^$/d' |
>       git tag -F -

... this is a reasonable thing to have in a more user-friendly feature, like your -c above.

> I dunno. There is a certain elegance to telling the user about what
> progress we _did_ make, but if there isn't an easy way to turn that into
> a retry of their command, it may not be all that useful.

Yeah, I am OK with "leaving TAG_EDITMSG behind" and a future "tag -c/-C $another" to coexist.