On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:36:25PM -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > but reading your draft it seems we are agreeing on the fact that > the commit hash should be the one used. > > Yes... but... ;-) > My take is this.A If upstream uses tags, we should use them.A It's > easier to follow.A Commit > is for when there is no tag, and when you use commit, you need to use the > full 40 character hash. Then we clearly disagree :) > I've updated the draft to clarify that.A I've also included a link within > the draft regarding Git Tags. > There is a discussion within that link regarding re-tagging; which I think > explains > the situation.A Re-using the same tag in Git just isn't normal procedure > - and to say it is > frowned upon is a gross understatement.A They call it "insane".A I can't > imagine any > responsible upstream doing it. The problem is that there are many 'irresponsible' upstreams then, and I really mean many. The guidelines are not meant for projects that already follow the standards but quite the opposite, to be able to handle projects that do not behave correctly (and sometime projects that won't follow the standards despite asking them). Pierre -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
