On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:22:02PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> FWIW, this design came from 212945d4 ("Teach git-describe to verify
> >> annotated tag names before output", 2008-02-28). Shawn was quite
> >> explicit that use of the real name was deliberate:
> >>
> >> If an annotated tag describes a commit we want to favor the name
> >> listed in the body of the tag, rather than whatever name it has
> >> been stored under locally. By doing so it is easier to converse
> >> about tags with others, even if the tags happen to be fetched to
> >> a different name than it was given by its creator.
> >>
> >> and I tend to agree with the original rationale.
> >
> > Thanks, I should have dug into the history in the first place.
> >
> > Still, I'm not entirely convinced. As a decentralized system, I think
> > our first duty is to make things convenient and workable for the
> > preferences of the local repository, and second to facilitate
> > communication with other people's clones of the same repository.
>
> Yes, and that can be done by either (1) locally moving a tag that is
> stored in a wrong location to where it wants to be, or (2) locally
> *creating* a tag that suits the preferences of the local repository,
> ignoring the tag obtained from outside world that is stored in a
> wrong place. The latter would not help to facilitate communication,
> though.
FWIW, I think the reason here was a move from SVN to git by the help of
git-svn, and in that process deciding that tag names should follow a
different (less out-dated?) format.
- Roland
