Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > That said, I'm willing to believe that most users wouldn't figure this > out on their own, and saving TAG_EDITMSG might be more friendly. But one > other alternative might be to mention the hash of that tag object, and > possibly give advice on recovering it. Hmph, then the advice message would suggest "update-ref"? Ah, no. Because the message may be reused to create a tag with different tagname, which is very likely because one reason for the refusal to update the ref could be that the name was already taken, and that would create a mismatch between tagname and refname. OK, so ... > It's too bad we do not have "git tag -c" to match "git commit -c", which > would allow us to say something like: > > A tag object was created, but we failed to update the ref. > After correcting any errors, you can recover the original tag > message with: > > git tag -c $oid [other options] > > (where we'd replace $oid with the hash of the created tag object). The > best alternatives I could come up with were: > > # this is kind of obscure advice to give somebody, plus > # it makes a weird tag if you originally tried to tag "foo/bar" > # but then later switch to some other name. The "tag" field > # in the object won't match the ref. > git update-ref $ref $oid ... I agree that this is not a very good advice to give, and ... > # this saves just the message but is horribly complicated > git cat-file tag $oid | sed '1,/^$/d' | > git tag -F - ... this is a reasonable thing to have in a more user-friendly feature, like your -c above. > I dunno. There is a certain elegance to telling the user about what > progress we _did_ make, but if there isn't an easy way to turn that into > a retry of their command, it may not be all that useful. Yeah, I am OK with "leaving TAG_EDITMSG behind" and a future "tag -c/-C $another" to coexist.
