Re: Include git commit id and git tree id in *.changes files when uploading? [and 1 more messages]

[Andrew Bower <andrew@bower.uk>]

Hi Simon,

On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 09:01:48AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > Simon Josefsson writes ("Re: Include git commit id and git tree id in *.changes files when uploading? [and 1 more messages]"):
[...]
> >> This leads to me to believe that it would be better to use 'git-debpush
> >> --upstream-tag=v1.2.3' instead of 'git-debpush
> >> --upstream-tag=upstream/1.2.3', right?
> >
> > Yes.
> 
> It would be nice to document this somewhere.  The consequences of this
> choice was not at all clear to me, and maybe others will be similarily
> confused in the future.
> 
> >> I've been mixing those two styles in my uploads, to experiment with the
> >> effect, and pending any recommendations on this.  I haven't seen any
> >> noticiable difference between these two styles, and mix between them
> >> somewhat randomly to gain experience.
> >> 
> >> Is there any advantage to using --upstream-tag=upstream/1.2.3?

I wonder if #1115394 [1] is the source of your initial recollection? The
bug suggests that lightweight (bare ref) upstream tags are unusual and
that when they are present maintainers should synthesise a corresponding
annotated upstream/X tag. I suspect these types of upstream tags are
more prevalent in practice.

I've set replies to the bug for this.

Andrew

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/1115394 "git-debpush should maybe fail a
    check for bare ref upstream tags"