On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:55:09AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jarod Wilson wrote: > >> I'm not having any problems submitting builds and adding tags by hand > >> *which is exactly what we did in cvs*. What exactly is ESSENTIAL about > >> the nvr tags being automated for you? > > > > The fact that most builds will end up with no named tags at all because > > dist-git doesn't enforce manual tagging nor is it in the packager SOP. > > Having successfully built versions be tagged in the SCM so that the sources > > corresponding to a given NVR can be easily checked out at any time was > > posted as one of the essential requirements on the SCM setup. The current > > implementation does not comply to that essential requirement. > > Define "easily". I can look at koji for a specific build n-v-r, and > get its git hash quite easily. Then I can tell git to show me the tree > when it was at that git hash. Not as easy as if n-v-r tags were > already in place, which would avoid the need to talk to koji, but > still hardly hard. > > > Thus, this is > > a showstopper which should have blocked putting dist-git into production. > > See above. > > > Plus, automatic tagging was promised as THE reason we switch to dist-git in > > the first place. > > Huh? "THE" reason? Um, no. And there *are* automatic tags. They're > call git hashes. I don't think git hashes are an equivalent to the nvr tags though. I may have multiple commits for each nvr, a tag that explicitly specifies which version ended up as an rpm in koji would be quite helpful. I have troubles remembering hashes long-term, nvr is marginally easier. it also simplifies things like "git diff foo-1.2-1..foo-1.2-2" or the automation of that process. Cheers, Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
