| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: missing tags |
| Date: | 2010-10-02 12:02:37 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimbe54rAaGxyHw5hteEhV--NSW5q-=gQ3wqwz8r@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 13:36, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> There are commit messages from about 22 hours ago that say that the
> upcoming releases have been tagged, but I don't see the corresponding tags
> when I list out the tags in my repo (and there has been a commit since
> then).
>
> I'm not sure where the release procedures are documented - I couldn't find
> anything on the wiki.
>
> At the least this is confusing. If it wasn't intended that releases would be
> tagged yet, then the commit message should have read something else, ISTM.
This was intentional - to wait with the tags until the tarballs have
been verified *and published*, so we don't end up having to move the
tags later if we find a last-minute problem.
I think the confusion is from the use of "tagged" in the commit
message - it doesn't have anyting to do with tagging from a git/scm
perspective, it's just updating the version tags in the source which
is a completely different operation.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-10-02 12:26:16 | Re: PG-Git usernames |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-02 11:36:50 | missing tags |