True -- but Ted was talking about look for them in order to
eradicate them, so if you've pruned or never had one, you are
Ok.
I agree.
I personally feel that that kind of commit is misusing the
parent field (for one thing, it would not play well with merges
at all, although people who abuse commits to record non-ancestry
structure may not even be interested in merging such things so
it may not be a problem in practice). If people want to express
relationship between commits (and other objects in general)
other than ancestry, I think it would be cleaner to allow a tag
to have more than one pointers to other objects.
I know you are against arbitrary pointers inside objects that
does not have semantic meaning, and I agree. Probably your
"previous version of this tag was that one" is better than "more
than one arbitrary pointers" in that sense.
But I do not know how useful a linear history of tags are; it is
semantically the same as v1.5.0, v1.5.0.1, v1.5.0.2, ... sequence.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html