On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 12:57 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote: > Ville Skyttä wrote : > > > On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 10:38 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 00:29 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote: > > > > > > > I manually tagged the FC-3 branch where the patch was now included as > > > > *-1_1_fc3 (where it previously was *-1_fc3) without actually changing the > > > > release nor anything else in the spec file, and asked plague to rebuild > > > > that new branch. > > > ... > > > > > > IMHO, you should have done instead 'TAG_OPTS=-F make tag' of course IF > > > and ONLY IF the build failed. The tag in CVS should indicate that a the > > > rpm with the same NVR as in the TAG was created from this exact CVS > > > contents. > > This is interesting : One can force a tag to be overwritten? I had no idea > that could be achieved, and does seem like the proper way of doing things > if no package has yet been built from the current tag. Thoughts? We do it in case of build failure regularly in the Core CVS - there is even a make force-tag target. > So 1.1.fc3 < 1.fc4? I've been bitten too many times to be able to swear > that's correct without checking it first ;-) Also, since no "1.fc3" > package had been built, it doesn't make that much sense to bump the > release for the build. I personally prefer the suggestion above of > overwriting the tag, as long as it's used with extreme caution... 1.1.fc3 > 1.fc4 because numeric parts are considered > than alphabetic. > And I now realize that what I did is plain wrong, since as Michael pointed > out, someone wanting to check out the CVS files for the "1.fc3" package > will use the tag where the patch is missing. So I definitely won't do it > again ;-) Good. ;-) -- Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx>
