On 11 Aug 2015 15:23, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 11 August 2015 at 15:06, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > it would have to re-use the same tag name every time otherwise we end up > > with > > 17.5k/8.7k/4.3k/whatever new tags per year ... a really bad idea > > I was very much under the impression git is not designed with repeated > tag replication in consideration.
git has no problem fetching rewritten tags. internally, it doesn't care either -- a tag is merely a reference to an object. > The git tag documentation very much implies that any tag having its > reference changed will result in effort being required of everyone who > wishes to consume that tag. ( It literally brands the act of > re-tagging things to be "insane" ) > > Tags are very much intended to be immutable references to commits. the git docs take the stance that publishing any mutable names is wrong. same goes for rebasing and publishing rewritten history. that's simply the recommended practice. it doesn't mean that the world blows up when you do rewrite things. > If you need mutable references to commits, isn't that what branches are for? no, that's not what they're for. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
