On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Here's another suggestion. >> >> In all vote emails, we include the commit id that the release >> artifacts were built from, but create no tag at all. > > I love it when something is so obvious you wonder why it wasn't apparent in > the first place. I love this suggestion, and the specifics of how you > communicate the git commit hash is unimportant. If there's a "describe" > command to make it easier, so be it. We only tag when we mean to tag a > release, for reals.
Noah, your previous opinion was superior. Bob, please consider whether you beat yourself up due to old Subversion habits. You shout into the aether, "We are all voting on commit abcdef!" and everybody tries out that commit, understanding that it could be a Big Deal. That sounds like a tag by another name. I hope that official ASF releases could have corresponding persistent, unchanging Git tags; and also that moments of significance (release votes) would be reflected in the repository, rather than the mailing list archives. -- Iris Couch
