Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I am not sure if this is so bad, actually. Why do we need to treat > it as a mistake? When a command that wants a commit is fed a tag > (either a tag that directly refers to a commit, or a tag that tags > another tag that refers to a commit), the command knows how to peel > so it's not like the user is forced to say "git log T^{commit}". > > And if something that *MUST* take a commit refuses to (or more > likely, forges to) peel a tag down to a commit and yields an error, > I think that is what needs fixing, not the command that creates a > tag. > > So, I am fairly negative on this change---unless it is made much > more clear in the doc and/or in the proposed log message what > practical downside there are to the end users if we do not stop this > "mistake", that is. Having said all that, I can sort-of see that it may make sense to forbid tagging anything but a commit-ish, either by default, or a "git tag --forbid-no-committish" that can be turned on with a configuration.