On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Dustin Sallings <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote: > >> I think you might be reading a bit too much into what Noah is saying here. >> I believe he's just taking issue with the two separate rc/ and rel/ "paths" >> in the tag names. For what it's worth I agree with him on that front, >> though I'd consider going even further (as Paul suggested earlier in the >> thread) and just prevent rewriting of any tag pushed to the ASF remote. >> Then there's no need for any tag prefix at all. Best, > > > I don't think that's different from what I said. Tags don't generally > have "paths" (it's 1.4rc1 or it isn't) and git makes it hard to overwrite > them because it's a bad idea and will only lead to confusion. > > IMO, there just isn't room or need to innovate here. Code's cooked in > various dev branches. That gets rolled up into an "official" branch towards > a feature or release. Once a release is almost ready, alpha, beta and RC > tags get dropped in aligned with the same version numbers the server will > report. Once it's done, you can retag a commit with a newer tag that calls > it done and it's shipped. > > -- > dustin sallings Git makes it hard, but by no means impossible. The whole reason these "paths" are even on the table is to add some immutability to the official ASF repo. A little less convention, a little more configuration. Best, Adam
