From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher J. Morrone Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:17:53 -0800 Subject: [Lustre-devel] Lustre tags In-Reply-To: References: <4CED66BB.1010706@llnl.gov> Message-ID: <4CED8F11.8090606@llnl.gov> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org On 11/24/2010 12:30 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > What specific use do you have for the tags, and is the above tag hash-to-commit-date mapping enough? Is there any reason NOT to always use "-a" when creating a tag? I hadn't done a fetch from prime in a couple of weeks, and when I just did it I saw that v1_8_5_RC4 had been tagged 1.8.5. In that case, you can see that the change to lustre-version.ac to make it 1.8.5 actually happened several commits before the actual 1.8.5 tag. I have no way of knowing how long v1_8_5_RC4 was in existence before it became 1.8.5. Not a big deal, really. But it would have been simple to see what happened if the tag had been of the annotated/signed type. Also, in the past "git describe" did not stop at lightweight tags, only at annotated/signed tags. That may have changed in newer versions of git. I believe that annotated tags for lustre version numbers. In fact, it kind of seems like annotated tags should be the default behavior for "git tag". I can't think of a good reason why you would not want a tag to be annotated if you are going to share it with others. My guess is that lightweight tags are just the default in git for historical reasons (they were implemented first). Chris