Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Hmm. Is it a clear enough hint when the user uses an actual tag object > to make a signed or annotated tag? At least for me, private throw-away > tags tend to just be refs/tags/foo pointing to a commit, and real, > for-public-consumption tags at least get an annotation, if not a > signature. > > I seem to recall we make a similar distinction somewhere else in the > code, but I can't remember offhand where. Maybe it was just a proposal > that never made it anywhere. You are thinking about "describe", I think, and the analogy holds true. The tag annotation vs lightweight tag is a good hint I forgot to take into account. > Anyway, the problem would be somebody who does something like: > > $ git tag -m "here is a description of how this wip is going" foo-wip > > which violates the assumption above. True, I think I did that sometimes. I personally do not use "private tags" that much anymore; I make liberal use of private branches for that kind of work instead, as it is more flexible (I can check it out, build on it, rebase -i, and generally whip it around in any other way). -- 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