Hi Simon, On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 09:01:48AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Ian Jackson <[email protected]> writes: > > Simon Josefsson writes ("Re: Include git commit id and git tree id in > > *.changes files when uploading? [and 1 more messages]"): [...] > >> This leads to me to believe that it would be better to use 'git-debpush > >> --upstream-tag=v1.2.3' instead of 'git-debpush > >> --upstream-tag=upstream/1.2.3', right? > > > > Yes. > > It would be nice to document this somewhere. The consequences of this > choice was not at all clear to me, and maybe others will be similarily > confused in the future. > > >> I've been mixing those two styles in my uploads, to experiment with the > >> effect, and pending any recommendations on this. I haven't seen any > >> noticiable difference between these two styles, and mix between them > >> somewhat randomly to gain experience. > >> > >> Is there any advantage to using --upstream-tag=upstream/1.2.3?
I wonder if #1115394 [1] is the source of your initial recollection? The bug suggests that lightweight (bare ref) upstream tags are unusual and that when they are present maintainers should synthesise a corresponding annotated upstream/X tag. I suspect these types of upstream tags are more prevalent in practice. I've set replies to the bug for this. Andrew [1] https://bugs.debian.org/1115394 "git-debpush should maybe fail a check for bare ref upstream tags"
