From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] svnimport: Fix broken tags being generated Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:40:00 -0700 Message-ID: <7vpscsx1hr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20061016010037.27259.26157.stgit@machine.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 16 07:40:09 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 1GZLCq-0005iz-Ho for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:40:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751470AbWJPFkE (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:40:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751472AbWJPFkE (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:40:04 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29]:6549 "EHLO fed1rmmtao10.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751470AbWJPFkB (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:40:01 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061016054001.YWKC18985.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:40:01 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id atg41V00T1kojtg0000000 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:40:05 -0400 To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20061016010037.27259.26157.stgit@machine.or.cz> (Petr Baudis's message of "Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:00:37 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Petr Baudis writes: > Currently git-svnimport generates broken tags missing the timespec in the > 'tagger' line. This is a random stab at a minimal fix. > > Signed-off-by: Petr Baudis Interesting. Applied. I remember that older "git tag" does not even add the tagger line (the kernel history starts using one from 2.6.13-rc4 on Jul 28, 2005). Does gitweb handle those tags correctly, I wonder? Especially for 2.6.11-tree tag there is no info you can guess any "age" information from.