Code review comment for lp:~jelmer/bzr/overwrite-tags

> It's come up a few times (the emacs folks have asked about it too), so I
> would argue it's not unheard of. I don't really see the harm in adding a
> option for "bzr push" / "bzr pull" and a command-line option is a lot
> more discoverable than a configuration option.

The fact that it's more exposed means more work associated with removing it
which is my point. Yes, some people need this option, I agree with that or I
wouldn't search for a way to land the associated feature :)

> This also doesn't really
> seem appropriate as a configuration option since you wouldn't really
> want to set this option in e.g. branch.conf any more than you would want
> to set 'overwrite = True'.

I disagree with that, if I maintaining an official branch mirrored to
apublic website I very well want to set this option locally.

>
> We can't directly push to lp: bzr/2.3 so I don't understand how that is
> relevant to the discussion about 'bzr push --overwrite-tags' ?

This is precicely what versioned tags could address :)

> >
> > How about landing this stuff behind a config option and *then* discuss about
> adding the parameter to have some progress ? That would even allow landing in
> 2.5 in this case as this will not break compatibility (assuming you update the
> foreign plugins accordingly).
> Doing this will break compatibility no more or less than my patch does,
> in that anything that doesn't support it will ignore it and anything
> that does support it will.

It won't break the command-line compatibility which is exactly what I'm
arguing against.