2009/4/6 Kristian Høgsberg <k...@redhat.com>: > On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 02:28 +0200, Philipp wrote: >> </lurk> >> >> Kristian Høgsberg wrote: >> > Just an update on my plan to possibly rebase the gtk+ repo: not going to >> > happen. What we have now is a good compromise between keeping all >> > history in the most correct form and how much work we want to put into >> > it. Again, no data is lost, we just have a few tags with some extra >> > files in them. >> How about deleting the broken tags from the git repos and keeping a >> little note somewhere buried deep in the docs/ dirs. Someone who cares >> about digging through history (like me) will then know to hit the >> historical CVS / SVN repositories for these specific missing tags. >> >> Its not like someone is going to re-roll tarballs from these tags ever >> again (or at least the chance is ~ ɛ). > > I don't see a good reason to delete the tags. They take virtually no > storage, and are mostly accurate except for the extra files. Last but > not least, they're a great help when browsing through history since most > repo viewers will annotate commits with the tag or branch if one or more > exists (for example, the GTK_2_16_0 tag on this page: > http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gtk+/log/?ofs=50)
It would be better if you used more git compliant tags like "v2.16.0". Those tags make sense, but "BEFORE_FEDERICO_FILENAME_ENTRY_MERGE"... I don't think so. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
