A release note loses value if its tag points to a commit that was never actually deployed. The immediate goal is to make the next change safer and easier to explain. Begin with the branch state and the people who depend on it.
Why this deserves attention
Git’s official documentation separates the working tree, index and commit history because each command acts on a different part of that model. A workflow is easier to trust when teammates can see what changed, why it changed and how to recover if an assumption was wrong. Good habits matter more than memorising every flag. The tag, deployed artifact and changelog should describe the same version so a later incident can be traced quickly. A clear explanation of the intended result is usually more valuable than a long sequence of clever commands.
A practical way forward
Agree on a version rule, tag the exact commit used for release and record any migration or rollback instructions beside it. Read git status before acting and inspect the diff afterwards. If the change affects a shared branch, communicate the plan before rewriting or merging history.
Picture it in a real situation
When a hotfix is shipped, a new tag should point to that fix rather than silently moving the previous public tag. A small, named change is easier for a teammate to review. Record the commit or branch involved so a later investigation can reconstruct the choice.
What to avoid
Avoid using a moving branch name as the only version reference for a production release. Check whether the branch is shared and whether the command can discard work. A recovery step should be understood before a risky history operation begins.
Takeaway
Make the next change small, reviewable and recoverable. Explain the intent beside the result.
Sources and further reading: Official Git documentation; Git worktree manual.