From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: git-fetch and unannotated tags Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:50:22 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <200704252004.45112.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200704252142.33756.andyparkins@gmail.com> <7vfy6ow4my.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200704260904.08447.andyparkins@gmail.com> <4630C377.8000602@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 27 17:47:20 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 1HhSfH-0003AR-NI for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:47:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756016AbXD0Pqc (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:46:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756021AbXD0Pqc (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:46:32 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:52251 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756019AbXD0Pqa (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:46:30 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HhSeM-00068Z-Tg for git@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:46:23 +0200 Received: from host-89-229-25-173.torun.mm.pl ([89.229.25.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:46:22 +0200 Received: from jnareb by host-89-229-25-173.torun.mm.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:46:22 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-89-229-25-173.torun.mm.pl Mail-Copies-To: Jakub Narebski User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andreas Ericsson wrote: > 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. You can delete branch (ref?) using ":" refspec, if server you push to has git new enough. HTH. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git