On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:31 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 28 September 2011 18:20, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:12 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 28 September 2011 18:08, <ggreg...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> Author: ggregory >>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 28 17:08:45 2011 >>>>>> New Revision: 1176967 >>>>>> >>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1176967&view=rev >>>>>> Log: >>>>>> Remove tag, fixing POM and will retag for RC1 >>>>> >>>>> Please tag as RC2 instead; tags are supposed to be immutable. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Even if a vote is never called? >>> >>> Yes, it's easier to trace later. >>> >>> Tags are very cheap to create; it's just not worth creating possible >>> confusion by allowing them to be recreated in some circumstances. >> >> What confusion is there in recreating something that never really existed? >> >> "Hello everyone, time to vote on RC67" >> "WHAT? Did I miss the earlier ones?" >> "No, I just screwed up a lot". >> >> I regularly tag and ditch. > > Can't parse above. Do you mean you regularly commit tags and then over-write > them? I agree with Sebb that since they are cheap, there is no reason to > "reuse"
Yup. svn copy ... build <oops, didn't update version> svn remove svn copy build <oops, didn't update something else> svn remove svn copy build call vote > And hey, when was the last time you looked at an RCn with n<3? He he. Exactly. This is merely a trick to lure me into looking at an RC before it's ready. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
