On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 9:49 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think "just commits" is too restrictive. linux.git contains a tag of a
> tree, for example (we also have tags pointing to blobs in git.git, but
> they are not annotated).
>
> However, I could see an argument for the git-tag porcelain to notice a
> tag-of-tag and complain. Probably peeling the tag automatically is a bad
> idea, just because it behaved differently for so long. But something
> like might be OK:
>
> $ git tag -a mytag
> error: refusing to make a recursive tag
> hint: The object 'mytag' referred to by your new tag is already a tag.
> hint:
> hint: If you meant to create a tag of a tag, use:
> hint:
> hint: git tag -a -f mytag
> hint:
> hint: If you meant to tag the object that it points to, use:
> hint:
> hint: git tag -a mytag^{}
>
> It would be a minor annoyance to somebody who frequently makes
> tags-of-tags, but it leaves them with an escape hatch.
I think a warning/error would be perfect. Again, if I had realized the
consequences of my actions years ago when I made this tag, it would
have changed a lot down the line for me. If I had seen that message
before, I think it would have helped a lot. You might even add an
educational bit in there and say "Warning: You are creating an
annotated tag that points to another annotated tag. Annotated tags may
point to more than just commits by design. Refspec tag^{} may be used
to peel the source tag back to the commit it points to". Then follow
with the instructional commands.
I agree with your approach though. Thanks again.
