From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262884AbVFWI26 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:28:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262867AbVFWIZm (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:25:42 -0400 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:14761 "HELO machine.sinus.cz") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262516AbVFWHir (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:38:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:38:45 +0200 From: Petr Baudis To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , Greg KH , Linux Kernel , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers Message-ID: <20050623073845.GA5204@pasky.ji.cz> References: <42B9FCAE.1000607@pobox.com> <42BA14B8.2020609@pobox.com> <42BA1B68.9040505@pobox.com> <42BA271F.6080505@pobox.com> <42BA45B1.7060207@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear diary, on Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 07:58:13AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds told me that... > Does it help when I scream? Nope. I still think you are wrong. :-) (BTW, Cogito always fetches all the tags now - but it's not that I would have a huge problem with changing that to some better behaviour.) > > Multiple users -- not just me -- would prefer that git-pull-script > > pulled the tags, too. > > And multiple users -- clearly including you -- aren't listening to me. > Tags are separate from the source they tag, and they HAVE TO BE. There is > no "you automatically get the tags when you get the tree", because the two > don't have a 1:1 relationship. > > And not making them separate breaks a lot of things. As mentioned, it > fundamentally breaks the distributed nature, but that also means that it > breaks whenever two people use the same name for a tag, for example. You > can't "merge" tags. BK had a very strange form of merging, which was (I > think) to pick the one last in the BK ChangeSet file, but that didn't make > it "right". You just never noticed, because Linux could never use tags at > all due to the lack of privacy, except for big releases.. I think there should simply be two namespaces - public tags and private tags. Private tags for stuff like "broken", "merged", or "funnychange". Other people don't care about those, and they certainly shouldn't get them by default (but they should have a way to get them explicitly, if you tell them). But then there are the official tags, like "v2.6.13" or even "v2.6.12-ck2" - if you merge with those branches, you should always get those precisely for what Jeff says - they are big syncing points for a lot of people and you should be always able to refer to v2.6.13 if you have the commit in your tree. Since there should be _few_ of those tags, you might even want to get tags only from branches marked "tagtrusted" (Cogito's origin branch would be by default), or want to interactively confirm new tag additions during a pull. Also, ideally there would be no or only extremely rare tag conflicts. I think it would be simplest to use a special prefix for the private tags. ~ and ! might get touched by shell, so what about %? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ be careful, some twit might quote you out of context..