This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi! On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:56:13 -0400, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote: > Last night I created several tags in both the core > and ports repos to mark the commits at which the > libc.pot file was sent to the translation project. > > Since then we've talked about what to call these > tags to avoid confusion. > > Given that I haven't uploaded a 2.15.1 snapshot > for the translation team I decided I would delete > these tags and follow the new naming convention. > > I've delted the glibc-2.15.1-tps tag from the ports > repsoitory with no problem. (This won't delete the tag for people who had since pulled from the sourceware repository.) > However, deleting the remote branch on the core repo > results in: > > carlos@lios:~/src/glibc-2.15$ git tag -d glibc-2.15.1-tps > Deleted tag 'glibc-2.15.1-tps' (was 88f501d) > carlos@lios:~/src/glibc-2.15$ git push origin > :refs/tags/glibc-2.15.1-tps > remote: *** Deleting a tag is not allowed in this repository > remote: error: hook declined to update refs/tags/glibc-2.15.1-tps > To ssh://carlos@sourceware.org/git/glibc.git > ! [remote rejected] glibc-2.15.1-tps (hook declined) > error: failed to push some refs to > 'ssh://carlos@sourceware.org/git/glibc.git' > > Are we disallowing tag deletion because it's akin to > rewriting history? I assume that it's because of the write-once property, so there is no coherent action what is going to happen in peoples' repositories in such a case -- it depends on the individual pulls' timing. See also the discussion ÂOn Re-tagging in Âgit tag --helpÂ. I do agree that glibc and glibc-ports should be configured in the same way. (CCing Jim Meyering for this purpose, who has been configuring the Git repositories, if I remember corrently.) For the reasons given, I'd lean towards disallowing the deletion of tags. (And, on a similar topic, I do not agree with the configuration of disallowing (forced) non-forward pushes to branches (apart from "official" master and other release branches maybe) -- an equivalent thing can always be achieved by the more destuctive Âgit push [remote] :[branch] followed by pushing anew.) > The problem I have with that is that tags are used for > logical purposes, and mistakes show up in the tag list. > Mistakes in a commit are quickly lost in the logs but > not so for tags. > > We should be allowed to manage tags as we like to keep > the list clean. Again, not possible. That's why I discourage the use of tags. > The only other problem is that users have to manage > keeping their local tags in sync with the remote repo, > but that's a question for another day (there are scripts > for doign this). What exactly do you mean here? GrÃÃe, Thomas
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |