On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 12:01 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Hmph. I cannot shake this nagging feeling that this is probably a > solution that is overly narrow to a single problem that won't scale > into the future. > > [...snip good point...] > > If we drop the "verification" step from the above, that essentially > becomes an equivaent to "hash-object -t tag -w --stdin". > > So I now have to wonder if it may be sufficient to use "hash-object" > in filter-branch, without doing this "allow malformed data that we > would not permit if the tag were being created today, only to help > replaying an old, already broken data" change to "git mktag". > > Is there something that makes "hash-object" insufficient (like it > still does some extra checks we would want to disable and cannot > work as a replacement for your "--allow-missing-tagger")?
I've done a couple of quick tests and it looks like it will work. I'll run a few more checks and repost. Ian.
