Subject: Re: Local tag killer

From: Marc Branchaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:04:22 -0400

On 13-09-30 06:44 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Marc Branchaud wrote:
>
>> On 13-09-30 04:08 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> Again, in the cases where there is actually a SHA1 conflict between all
>>> possible tags that match a tag short-end then listing them and asking the
>>> user to be more explicit is the right thing to do.  But that should be a
>>> very rare case in practice, and designing for making this case easy is
>>> the wrong approach.
>>>
>>> Instead, the common case of multiple remotes with duplicated tag names
>>> referring to the same thing _and/or_ multiple remotes with distinct tags
>>> names is what should be made easy to use with no extra steps.
>>
>> Again, I don't think that's the common case.  I think it's just as likely for
>> there to be multiple remotes with duplicate tag names that refer to different
>> objects.
>
> Why do you say so?  I'm curious to know what kind of work flow would do
> that in practice.

The use case I have in mind is where a project makes use of other 
projects, for example an application that uses some libraries.  The 
application's repository could contain the full histories of the 
libraries, each subtree-merged into a different directory.

So maybe that's not so common these days, but the current flat tag 
namespace makes it pretty much impractical.

		M.