On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Rémy Oudompheng <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011/2/7 Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Rémy Oudompheng >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am willing to release a 2.8.1 version of namcap corresponding to the >>> namcap-2.x branch of the repository. It includes the following >>> changes: >>> * revert a dictatorial choice of valid filename characters to include >>> all reasonable ASCII characters >>> * fix the emptydir rule that did not work >>> * the extravars rule was never run (and didn't know options was a >>> standard variable) >>> * an even bigger test suite. >>> >>> The rules with no test cases are : depends, elffiles, kdeprograms, >>> licensepkg, lotsofdocs, missingbackups, perllocal, rpath, >>> scrollkeeper, symlink. >> Looks like you didn't push the 2.8 tag to the official repo yet. But >> 2.8.1 sounds fine. >> >> I've also noticed you are breaking git commit message convention a >> bit- you should have a one line summary, then a blank line, then your >> message. See >> http://projects.archlinux.org/namcap.git/commit/?id=eb13cb04c7a2bc3264c63e6fa882633a0a54e773 >> for why it looks odd doing it the way you have a few times. > > I guess it's too late to correct this unless I arbitrarily completely > rewrite the branch. I'll try to pay attention to that later. Yes, I didn't mean go back and fix it- you never ever want to rewrite history once you've pushed it public to a main branch.
> I think I did git push --all instead of git push --tags. That would > explain the absence of the tag in the central repository. Tags have to be explicitly pushed, so --all doesn't do it. I usually just do "git push master" to be explicit, and then "git push --tags". -Dan
