I meant to include this link:
http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Basics-Tagging
There should be no problem retroactively tagging releases, though how valuable
that would be in practice is another question.
andrew
On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Andrew Mortensen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:59 AM, Juha Heinanen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> i don't mind tagging versions as long i don't need to cherry pick
>> anything to them. it must be enough to cherry pick to x.y branches.
>
> As far as most git operations are concerned, tags are just another reference
> to a point in the tree, like a commit identifier. Using tags won't change the
> current development model at all.
>
> I'd like to suggest that if we begin using tags, which I strongly support, we
> also start GPG-signing those tags. Git does support lightweight tags, but
> they're purely pointers to specific commits in the tree history. They don't
> support signing, aren't checksummed, and won't have a tagging message (e.g.,
> "Release 3.4.0").
>
> Recent versions of git support signed commits, as well, which might also be
> valuable for the project, given the large number of people with commit access.
>
> andrew
> _______________________________________________
> sr-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
