On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Dustin Sallings <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> The history is in the X.Y.x release branch. It has no >> business cluttering up the tags, and no business confusing users about >> whether it has been blessed by the project. > > > Does this imply you intend to leave branches open forever even when > development on them has stopped? > > I would say that the history is in the commits that lead up to the tag > along with the release notes being actually *in* the tag. > > I've seen people keep lots of dead branches around which I find > considerably more confusing than excessive tags since a branch is a dynamic > line of development and a tag is a static commit in time. If you're not > actively doing development, a branch just makes it look like you might be. > > It's trivial (in git at least) to reopen a development branch from any > previously released version with cryptographically verified certainty that > you have the correct code that led to that release. >
Your argument here and the earlier argument about branches being temporary tags confuses me. Both are nothing more than pointers at hashes. This is just a social distinction. This entire thread is considering social distinctions about community consensus to decide what will be the value of the 1.1.1 (for immediate reference) tag. Consider each release a single round of Paxos to generate distributed consensus on which sha to choose. > > Not that I think you guys don't know what you're doing or anything. > I'm coming mostly from a "user" who will be hoping to be using couchdb > sources, writing extensions, and trying hard to make sure whatever changes I > make are made available to all couchdb users and developers. That and I've > got a ridiculous amount of time spent manipulating git repos. > > -- > dustin sallings > > > >
