From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: Pulling tags from git.git Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:13:08 +0100 Message-ID: <440EAE34.5020807@op5.se> References: <4dd15d180603061044h3f70d48bk8006c15e605fdca1@mail.gmail.com> <4dd15d180603061054k36d1a434se7377ded1b3240bb@mail.gmail.com> <440D5285.3050401@op5.se> <7voe0ilf25.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <440D7A7D.8070507@op5.se> <440D9AB0.4070305@gmail.com> <440DA82D.3060909@op5.se> <440E5E40.7090700@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 08 11:13:32 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGvfU-0002iU-E8 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:13:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964838AbWCHKNK (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:13:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932553AbWCHKNK (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:13:10 -0500 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:63173 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932548AbWCHKNJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:13:09 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.20] (host-213.88.215.14.addr.se.sn.net [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4C66BD58; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:13:08 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: gitzilla@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <440E5E40.7090700@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: A Large Angry SCM wrote: > > Why is a "pull" bothering with tags? A "fetch" yes, but not a pull. > A pull is a fetch + merge. I said pull because what little I know of Linus' workflow is the the emails he gets from susbsystem maintainers are called "pull requests". >> >> Tags not meant to be distributed are unannotated, and unannotated tags >> are kept out of published repos which are always stored at a central >> server. Everybody synchronize to those central repos, so nobody pulls >> from each other. Perhaps this is how the kernel devs work too, but if >> it ever changes the update hook will no longer be able to safeguard >> from it and the, in my eyes, temporary tags will be distributed in a >> criss-crossing mesh so no-one will ever know where it came from or who >> created it or why. I.e. a Bad Thing. > > > The distinction here is not annotated tags or temporary tags but _local_ > tags. _Your_ workflow conventions treat unannotated tags as local tags > but declaring that unannotated tags can not be pushed is imposing _your_ > conventions on other groups. Just as branch names, themselves, can be > meaningful, so can tag names. > Yes, that's why I said it's better to discourage than to disallow. The default update-hook is disabled by default and there are comments aplenty to make it possible even for the most die-hard point-and-click monkey to be able to comment out the disallowing of unannotated tags. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231