which is consistent with the way all the native Porcelain commands handle

tags.  There is no per-remote namespace for tags in git Porcelain.
For some people, the patch would be an improvement, but for some other

people, this would be a regression.
It needs discussion and concensus if we were to do this; currently I am

not very much in favor of this change.
--

Due to the quirks of CVS (and SVN), over time many CVS/SVN repositories

have picked up a lot of tags which either made sense at the time (but

don't anymore), or have not been wiped because of the

difficulty/impossibility to do so in the old repository.
The usual way to import from CVS is to do the import, then pick the

branches and tags you really want to keep, copy/replicate them outside

remotes and then move on in a clean fashion.
Rerunning cvsimport on a regular basis causes the import to (re)create

all the tags from CVS again; if this is done in your regular tags space,

this is a mess at best, or overwrites whatever renamed tags you

carefully created which happen to match with old CVS tagnames.
git-svn *does* use the tags namespace under remotes, so it does it the

'proper' way.

With respect to the concern that all git porcelain works without a

separate remotes/.../tags namespace, two things:

- git-svn and git-cvsimport cross the boundary to a different VCS and

  therefore can/should use an extra barrier before (auto)converting to

  git native tags (and branches).

- I personally would find it most natural when upon cloning a git

  repository not only the branches cloned end up in a separate remotes

  namespace (like they do now already), but that the tags would do the same

  (e.g. in remotes/.../tags).
Even if this behaviour is not deemed "good" to be a new default, I'd

strongly suggest to at least make it optional using an appropriate flag

(and respective git-config variable to make it the local default).

--

Sincerely,                                                          srb@cuci.nl

           Stephen R. van den Berg.

"It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than

 to be coming up it."

--

That sounds like a sound argument, and perhaps people may wish we did so

from the day one.  Alas, we didn't.
So the course of action would be to do these over a long period of time.
 - introduce this as an option now;
 - give another option to explicitly ask for the current behaviour;
 - perhaps give an advance warning that this optional behaviour will

   become the default; and
 - finally swap the default behaviour.
if people agree with this change, that is.
--