Em sex, 5 de abr de 2019 às 19:21, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 08:56:16AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote: > > > > I was thinking it was just the --no-edit fix. :) Even with the "--amend" > > > thing, though, it's probably a little light for a 3-month-long GSoC > > > project. :) > > > > I apologize for the confusion. I'm not fully aware of any per-option > > philosophies in Git, so I may be unaware of the misunderstanding my > > request is causing. Let me attempt to clarify. > > I think most of the confusion was just bad reading on my part. :) > > > My goal as a user is to correct a tag. If I point a tag at the wrong > > commit, I simply want to move that tag to point to another commit. At > > the moment, the only way I know to do this is the -f option, which I > > just treat as a "move" for the tag. I realize that may not be its > > intent in the implementation, but from a user perspective that's the > > end result I get. > > > > So if I treat -f as a "move this tag", I also want to say "reuse the > > existing commit message". So again, in my mind, that means -f > > --no-edit. Which means "I'm moving this tag and I want to keep the > > previous commit message". > > > > I hope this makes more sense. If getting this means not using -f or > > --no-edit at all, and is instead a whole different set of options, I'm > > OK with that as long as the end result is achievable. It's impossible > > to write a script to "move" (-f) a bunch of annotated tags without an > > editor prompting me on each one. So this "--no-edit" addition would > > assist in automation, and also making sure that we simply want to > > correct a tag, but not alter the message. > > Yeah, I think what you want to do is perfectly reasonable. The only > reason not to use "-f" is because it already means other things, and we > don't want to overload it. This new proposed --amend option, although semantically different, would have a very similar functionality to the already existing -f option. So should we, perhaps, change -f's behavior to treat the tag as a new one, treating the old one as if it never existed (as I think Junio was saying)? By this I mean the command should fail if the user doesn't give a SHA-1 and the previous message wouldn't be preloaded. --amend, on the other hand, would give the user an opportunity to revise the tag by opening, by default, the editor with the pre-existing message unless given the '--no-edit' option, and if not given a SHA-1 it would keep on using the previous one. > Calling it "--amend" would make perfect > sense (and then fixing "--no-edit" so it lets you avoid opening the > editor). So I think there are two bits of work: > > 1. Add an "--amend" option, which allows overwriting an existing tag > and pre-populates the message with the existing tag's message. > > 2. Make --no-edit work like the patch I showed earlier (assuming that > your --amend still opens an editor by default). > > -Peff
