On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 04:32:27PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > This is the first use of the '%n$<fmt>' style of printf format in the
> > *.[ch] files in our codebase, but it's supported by POSIX[1] and there
> > are existing uses for it in po/*.po files, so hopefully it won't cause
>
> The latter is a stronger indication that this should be OK than the
> former ;-) Thanks for digging and noting.
Thank Ævar, I shamelessly stole this message from one of his patches
that didn't get included in[1].
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/config/advice.txt b/Documentation/config/advice.txt
> > index 88620429ea..ec4f6ae658 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/config/advice.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/config/advice.txt
> > @@ -90,4 +90,6 @@ advice.*::
> > waitingForEditor::
> > Print a message to the terminal whenever Git is waiting for
> > editor input from the user.
> > + nestedTag::
> > + Advice shown if a user attempts to recursively tag a tag object.
> > --
>
> In addition to 'advice', we may have to add a configuration to help
> projects that wants to tag tag objects regularly so that they do not
> have to keep typing "--allow-nested-tag". But that can wait until a
> participant of such a project comes forward and makes a case for
> their workflow.
>
> > +chain of custody by signing someone else's signed tag. However, in
> > +practice, this is typically a mistake so we prevent it from happening by
> > +default unless specifically requested.
>
> 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}".
This patch came about because Robert Dailey expressed confusion after
accidentally creating a tag-to-a-tag a while back by mistake when he
actually meant to amend a tag.
In the discussion upthread, Peff noted that he has never seen a
tag-to-a-tag in the wild before. I think the conclusion was that for
the majority of users, doing this is an error. That is what this patch
is guarding against.
>
> 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.
I can update the log message to include more detail.
>
> > +Automatically erroring on nested tags was introduced in Git version
> > +2.22.0.
>
> And please do not write something like this. A feature gets in a
> release when it is ready, and we may not ship this in 2.22.
Ævar suggested that we include this because git tag gets used by a lot
of scripts so in case one ever starts failing, a maintainer can more
easily track down the reason why.
>
> "git tag --help" the user is running may or may not have the
> paragraph about "nested tag", depending on the existence of the
> feature in the version of Git the user is running, so there is no
> need to say something like that.
>
> And no, I do not buy arguments like "random web servers serve
> different versions of documentation without identifying which
> version of Git they describe".
>
Thanks for the comments,
Denton
[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20181026192734.9609-8-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/
