On 17 October 2014 07:39, Tristan Seligmann <mithra...@mithrandi.net> wrote: > On 16 October 2014 20:12, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote: >> >> >> Tristan Seligmann wrote: >>> If you are fetching the upstream revisions / tags into your packaging >>> repository, you can use the upstream tag exactly as-is, no need to >>> re-tag (and indeed re-tagging would generally be a bad idea). >> >> I think there is a lot of value to always including the Debian upstream/v1.0 >> tag. It provides a standard way to access the upstream version across all >> repos. There is no such standard out there "in the wild". There are tags >> like v1.0, 1.0, release-1.0, the-real-1.0, etc. etc. > > Renaming the tag does not require retagging, git tag objects (perhaps > unfortunately) do not include their name.
There are different tag types in git. "Soft" are just named commit references and indeed can be renamed at will / point to new commits, however signed tags encode: object SHA1id type type-of-above tag tag-name tagger normal user name, email, timestamp tag-message All signed with gpg. Thus any change to that metadata of a signed tag will invalidate signature, or be treated as conflicting tag and thus require --force push. Unsigned tags should not be publically used for e.g. release identification. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUgEnJ0P=s47lxsxu1hoefxo-_eishw+msvznpn9oh1...@mail.gmail.com
