Обсуждение: missing tags
There are commit messages from about 22 hours ago that say that the upcoming releases have been tagged, but I don't see the corresponding tags when I list out the tags in my repo (and there has been a commit since then). I'm not sure where the release procedures are documented - I couldn't find anything on the wiki. At the least this is confusing. If it wasn't intended that releases would be tagged yet, then the commit message should have read something else, ISTM. cheers andrew
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > There are commit messages from about 22 hours ago that say that the > upcoming releases have been tagged, but I don't see the corresponding tags > when I list out the tags in my repo (and there has been a commit since > then). > > I'm not sure where the release procedures are documented - I couldn't find > anything on the wiki. > > At the least this is confusing. If it wasn't intended that releases would be > tagged yet, then the commit message should have read something else, ISTM. This was intentional - to wait with the tags until the tarballs have been verified *and published*, so we don't end up having to move the tags later if we find a last-minute problem. I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit message - it doesn't have anyting to do with tagging from a git/scm perspective, it's just updating the version tags in the source which is a completely different operation. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> There are commit messages from about 22 hours ago that say that the
> This was intentional - to wait with the tags until the tarballs have
> been verified *and published*, so we don't end up having to move the
> tags later if we find a last-minute problem.
Yeah. Given that moving/removing tags in Git is next to impossible,
we decided not to follow our old practice of applying tags immediately
after the version-stamping commits anymore. We'll tag later once we're
sure a respin isn't going to happen. It's easy and reliable to place a
tag on a past commit (unlike in CVS), so that should work fine. This
decision already paid benefits: if Marc had already pushed a 9.0.1 tag
when he discovered the docs didn't build, we'd have had a problem.
Just for the record, I believe this is where the tags will go, barring
we find another need to respin:
git tag REL9_0_1 a0ccae7ed41201251c0da51a91b84eb9d13c4ab1
git tag REL8_4_5 2f76a4b5a6bcefa03f5a4d377cfb449fd5d95185
git tag REL8_3_12 e32229adfa0769281b0650c8f999d54079c97661
git tag REL8_2_18 61318f38c0999e828d34230c3ea57eb24c49ceba
git tag REL8_1_22 d6d7926cd198cd8d42b0f2d40cbd8f876be9f278
git tag REL8_0_26 c689dacd6deba81c742ec35b2b792fba47db1ffc
git tag REL7_4_30 fd7fdbc88be20f5fc8789254b18902116f88b5fe
Hopefully that agrees with Marc's notes.
> I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit
> message
Possibly Marc should adopt the habit of making the commit messages read
like "Stamp 9.0.2", rather than "Tag".
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 16:08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: >> I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit >> message > > Possibly Marc should adopt the habit of making the commit messages read > like "Stamp 9.0.2", rather than "Tag". +1, that sounds like a good idea. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 10/02/2010 10:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 16:08, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit >>> message >> Possibly Marc should adopt the habit of making the commit messages read >> like "Stamp 9.0.2", rather than "Tag". > +1, that sounds like a good idea. > Yeah, I agree. Where are the procedures actually documented? cheers andrew
Agreed, I thought of that when Andrew sent the original ... On Sat, 2 Oct 2010, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 16:08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit >>> message >> >> Possibly Marc should adopt the habit of making the commit messages read >> like "Stamp 9.0.2", rather than "Tag". > > +1, that sounds like a good idea. > > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org