From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] git-tag man: when to use lightweight or annotated tags Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:06:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20130726190602.GC29799@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <51EFA9A9.4010103@gmail.com> <7vtxjj66kn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <51F12BE6.80606@gmail.com> <51F13A8F.9040400@xiplink.com> <51F23706.5040009@gmail.com> <51F2375E.1080003@gmail.com> <51F28D08.8050507@xiplink.com> <51F2AFBA.4020602@gmail.com> <51F2B2CD.1030004@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Git Mailing List , Marc Branchaud , Jonathan Nieder , Junio C Hamano To: Daniele Segato X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 26 21:06:12 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V2nL9-0003Os-H5 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 21:06:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755961Ab3GZTGG (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:06:06 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:59876 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751900Ab3GZTGE (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:06:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 2403 invoked by uid 102); 26 Jul 2013 19:06:04 -0000 Received: from c-98-244-76-202.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (98.244.76.202) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:06:04 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:06:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51F2B2CD.1030004@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:33:01PM +0200, Daniele Segato wrote: > stress the difference between the two with suggestion on when the user > should use one in place of the other. > > Signed-off-by: Daniele Segato The intent of your patch seems reasonable to me. There are a few minor language and typographical mistakes, and the patch itself is whitespace-damaged. I also do not know that it is accurate to say "most git commands ignore lightweight tags". It is really only "naming" ones like "git describe". Here is a re-send of your patch with the fixups I would recommend. -- >8 -- From: Daniele Segato Subject: [PATCH] docs/git-tag: explain lightweight versus annotated tags Stress the difference between the two with a suggestion on when the user should use one in place of the other. Signed-off-by: Daniele Segato Signed-off-by: Jeff King --- Documentation/git-tag.txt | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt index 22894cb..c418c44 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt @@ -42,6 +42,17 @@ is used to specify custom GnuPG binary. GnuPG key for signing. The configuration variable `gpg.program` is used to specify custom GnuPG binary. +Tag objects (created with `-a`, `s`, or `-u`) are called "annotated" +tags; they contain a creation date, the tagger name and e-mail, a +tagging message, and an optional GnuPG signature. Whereas a +"lightweight" tag is simply a name for an object (usually a commit +object). + +Annotated tags are meant for release while lightweight tags are meant +for private or temporary object labels. For this reason, some git +commands for naming objects (like `git describe`) will ignore +lightweight tags by default. + OPTIONS ------- -- 1.8.3.rc1.30.gff0fb75