On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 03:20:52PM -0300, Bárbara de Castro Fernandes wrote:
> 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. Yes, that's what I'd expect it to do (so yes, it's also different from "-f" in that it defaults to the existing tag destination instead of HEAD). -Peff
