On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 16:27, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:09:14AM -0800, Jakub Narebski wrote: > refspec. But I stand by my statement; if this feature is something we > want, it should be purely about listing tags. I don't want to get into > weird tag-specific config affecting the what we push. If somebody wants > negative refspecs, that can be a separate patch. I am not sure whether what is discussed now is really solving my problem best. Maybe I rephrase again the problem I have: I just want to make sure that certain commits are not garbage collected. And the artefacts I create to ensure that should not pollute the namespace of developer-created tags/branches. Is creating a tag and then hiding it again really the best solution for that? Here is some background: there is a tool developed in our company which helps teams to release their git-controlled products. The release tool gets as input just a commit ID. Whenever the release tool has succesfully done his work on a product it wants to make sure the this commit will never be garbage collected. Even not if month's later the product owner resets all their branches making the released commits beeing unreachable. And since some projects may run a lot of attempts until they finally released some stuff we don't to have our tags namespace to be polluted with too many attempt-to-release tags. -- 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