Web lists-archives.com

Re: Feature request: Add --no-edit to git tag command

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