> I was thinking about something like that too. I actually kinda like > it, and it gives an easy monotonic counter for tracking master.
Agreed. > I don't think we're using proper git tags yet. The 'tags' currently > in the tree for 2.5.1, etc that were imported from SVN are actually > just regular git commits. I think the svn import was smarter than that..."git tag -l" shows tags for 2.5.0, 2.5.1, 2.5.1-rc1, etc. > while intermediary development steps would still be "2.6rc1-42-blah". Yep, that makes sense. > Hm, something to consider though, I was planning on creating the 2.6 > branch and then immediately tagging as 2.6rc1. Since tags are > independent of branches, I think that would actually cause the 2.6rc1 > tag to be picked up by master too. Hm, true...you'd need at least one commit on the 2.6 branch to avoid it's tags getting picked up by "git describe" on master. I dunno. Looking at the DAG for the 2.5.1 branch, it looks like svn had a "Cutting at r11495 for 2.5.1 RC1" commit at the start of that branch (granted, svn semantics require that). We could always make a similar dummy commit. Not great, but not horrible, I think. - Stephen -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
