On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:27:15PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html