Sean Allred <allred.sean@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > If you're ok with that behavior, then does it make sense to > generalize it to the concept of a ref instead of just a tag name? > This may do a better job of communicating the idea that no ref is > inherently immovable. Yup, I only took a brief glance at the patch, and I didn't quite see the point of duplicationg an almost parallel mechanism to an existing (--single-branch, set-branch) pair of the feature, only to replace "branch" with "tag" (the patch noise / code churn did not seem worth it). In other words, is there a situation where a branch cannot be used (or using a branch is more cumbersome or awkward) when the user wants to use a tag with this patch? As users can just as easily move tags as they can move branches, the verb "freeze" used in the proposed log message probably does not reflect reality anyway, as you already pointed out. Thanks.
