Hi, On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > > > >>> That merely means whoever changes the tag and wants the record of such an > > >>> update, which is uncommon, need to make sure reflog is created for that > > >>> tag (and that tag only). > > >> > > >> The thing is: we cannot. At least not at the moment. > > > > > > $ mkdir -p .git/logs/refs/tags > > > $ >.git/logs/refs/tags/junker > > > $ git tag junker > > > $ wc .git/logs/refs/tags/junker > > > 1 8 134 .git/logs/refs/tags/junker > > > > > > Ok, it's not 180 byte as I said, but only 134 bytes. > > > > Having proven my superiour intelligence ;-) I think I can agree if your > > next proposal is to toggle reflog on for the tag when "git tag -f" is used > > to update an existing tag and core.logAllRefUpdates does not say "never" > > (this new value needs to be treated the same as "false" for most other > > purposes), and the tag does not already have a reflog. > > Actually, to prove my inferior intelligence, I suggest going for the easy > solution: replace the update-ref in filter-branch by a call to git tag -f, > after making sure that the reflog exists (with >>.git/logs/$tagname). Indeed, this proves my inferior intelligence: the update-ref method at least kept as much information as possible in the tag, including the tagger. So please strike my suggestion from your memory. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
