On 2015-08-25 10:54:38 +0100 (+0100), Dave Walker wrote: > On 25 August 2015 at 10:28, Alexis Lee <lx...@hpe.com> wrote: [...] > > Without offering an opinion either way, I'm just wondering how > > tag-every-commit is superior to never tagging? The git SHAs already > > uniquely identify every commit; if you want only those on master, simply > > `git log master`. [...] > The issue with this is deterministic version counting between commits, > allowing distributed additional commits but still keeping the version > counting centralised. [...]
I guess to take this one step further, it should be pointed out that "deterministic version counting" is really another way of saying "human-readable branch state serialization." The point is that Git already has a branch state serialization, where every commit includes a pointer reference to the identifiers of its parent commit(s). So really, tagging every state change within the branch is simply an assignment of a memorable name for that new state, mimicking the ordering implicit in Git, and tying that name (via a cryptographic attestation) to the corresponding commit. The commit ID of any point in the history on a branch is immutable, so aside from being able to discuss memorable names for these rather than a (typically abbreviated) hex representation of a SHA-1 hash and allow the participants to fairly intuitively know their sequence without looking it up, I'm unconvinced there's much difference between tagging every commit and tagging no commits. -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev