A Large Angry SCM wrote:
Why is a "pull" bothering with tags? A "fetch" yes, but not a pull.
A pull is a fetch + merge. I said pull because what little I know of
Linus' workflow is the the emails he gets from susbsystem maintainers
are called "pull requests".
Tags not meant to be distributed are unannotated, and unannotated tags
are kept out of published repos which are always stored at a central
server. Everybody synchronize to those central repos, so nobody pulls
from each other. Perhaps this is how the kernel devs work too, but if
it ever changes the update hook will no longer be able to safeguard
from it and the, in my eyes, temporary tags will be distributed in a
criss-crossing mesh so no-one will ever know where it came from or who
created it or why. I.e. a Bad Thing.
The distinction here is not annotated tags or temporary tags but _local_
tags. _Your_ workflow conventions treat unannotated tags as local tags
but declaring that unannotated tags can not be pushed is imposing _your_
conventions on other groups. Just as branch names, themselves, can be
meaningful, so can tag names.
Yes, that's why I said it's better to discourage than to disallow. The
default update-hook is disabled by default and there are comments
aplenty to make it possible even for the most die-hard point-and-click
monkey to be able to comment out the disallowing of unannotated tags.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html