On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 11:53 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:34:58PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > Interestingly[2] enough, a few releases seem to have partially or > > completely slipped through the cracks: > > > > version commit tag tarball > > --------- -------------- ----- --------- > > v0.1.2 | 567b42ce6a07 | no | no > > v0.1.5 | 786e029cd743 | no | yes > > v0.4.0 | 6cb028991705 | no | yes > > v0.4.3 | 7db4c905d745 | no | yes > > v0.4.5 | 9d3d43436eac | no | yes > > > > Note that I stopped checking at v0.6.5, so there might actually be > > more. [...] > > As for the missing release commits, I see no harm in creating them > > retroactively for completeness' sake, but if nobody can be bothered > > doing that I'll also fully understand :) > > We should create the missing ones. When we stopped using the > LIBVIRT_X_Y_Z tag naming scheme, our intention was to create > new vX.Y.Z tags to match all the original LIBVIRT_X_Y_Z tags > that we had. Perhaps I was not clear enough: for all releases in the table above, there is neither a vX.Y.Z nor a LIBVIRT_X_Y_Z tag. So it looks like the switch has been carried through as intended, it's just that some releases were never tagged in the first place. > > Thoughts? > > IMHO deleting "clutter" is a non-goal. GIT history should be append > only, and never changed after the fact. I obviously don't agree when it comes to this specific case :) But noted. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
