[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git |
Date: |
Sun, 01 Dec 2013 16:53:35 +0100 (CET) |
>> Hmm. So why do we have
>>
>> commit 9918cd9f8d8f5461c6ad7e086fd93de59960eb95
>> Author: Phil Holmes <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sun Nov 24 22:05:16 2013 +0000
>>
>> Release: bump VERSION.
>>
>> in the `master' branch? This looks incorrect to me, given that we
>> currently derive 2.17.9X tarballs from the `stable' branch, right?
>
> VERSION is out of step on master and stable, so needs bumping
> separately on each.
But I think we must not use 2.17.9X for the `master' branch! Such
tags should be only used on `stable'. It's totally confusing if a
developer reports a problem with, say, 2.17.97, and we have to ask `on
stable or on master?'...
IMHO, releases from `master' should use 2.19.XX. Then we can add
proper tags also so that e.g. `git describe' returns meaningful
results.
Werner
- tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, Phil Holmes, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, Janek Warchoł, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, Janek Warchoł, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, David Kastrup, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, Phil Holmes, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, Phil Holmes, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, David Kastrup, 2013/12/01
- Re: tag for 2.17.96 is missing in git, David Kastrup, 2013/12/01