James Turnbull wrote: > On 30/01/10 3:54 AM, Nigel Kersten wrote: >>> James, it looks to me like the 0.25.4 tag was applied to the commit >>> before the 0.25.4 CHANGELOG update. >> >>> ie to 0025e13792b6a8e010ce1fd1dc20a17e7ba8af53 rather than >>> c5eef045781ee0d8a50e4661b56da051e686cf13 ? > > Fixed.
While you can fix this in the main repo, such a changed tag will not be updated in existing clones via git pull, as git will not overwrite tags. The git-tag manpage talks a bit about this: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-tag.html#_on_re_tagging While on the subject of tags, any reason that you don't use annotated tags? Doing so would let you gpg sign the tags (with your key or the RL release key). Then folks using git could easily and securely verify their clone via: $ git tag -v 0.25.4 -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy
pgpNtGmVKgDyT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
