Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > 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).
Do you mean you'd expect "--amend" to do that, which is different from what "-f" does, so they should not be conflated into one? If so, I think that makes sense and changing the behaviour of "-f" is too confusing.
