From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: git-fetch and unannotated tags Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:21:27 +0200 Message-ID: <4630C377.8000602@op5.se> References: <200704252004.45112.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200704252142.33756.andyparkins@gmail.com> <7vfy6ow4my.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200704260904.08447.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Julian Phillips To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 26 17:21:38 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hh5ms-0005qJ-Ep for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:21:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031266AbXDZPVc (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:21:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031268AbXDZPVc (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:21:32 -0400 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:42151 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031275AbXDZPVb (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:21:31 -0400 Received: by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix, from userid 588) id 72E1F6BCBF; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:21:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on linux-server1.op5.se X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.4 Received: from [192.168.1.179] (unknown [192.168.1.179]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152E16BCBE; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:21:28 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) In-Reply-To: <200704260904.08447.andyparkins@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andy Parkins wrote: > > I'd be arguing for making not following unannotated tags the default, and then > supply a switch to make them followed. Is that too painful? I think that's > in keeping with the tradition that unannotated tags are, typically, not > wanted in a central repository - the default update hook prevents it for > example. > Yup. I share your feelings about simple tags. However, unless the repo owner has decided to explicitly push the simple tag to the repo, or fscked up by doing "git push --all" when he had cruft in his own repo, those tags are in fact part of the repo. In the "oops" case, I'd point this out to the owner so he/she can delete them from the central repo (and enable the update-hook that barfs when simple tags are pushed). If the owner actually wants the tags there, then they're obviously important for some reason, so keeping them might make sense. If anything, I'd be more interested in teaching git how to clean up simple tags. That fix is useful on a wider basis and the "simple vs annotated" recognition code can be useful for skipping unannotated tags when doing "git push --all --not-simple" (or some such). I have no idea where to put it though, as I haven't followed git development very closely as of late. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231