Re: Keeping upstream commits separate from Debian packaging commits
On 17 October 2014 07:39, Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net> wrote:
> On 16 October 2014 20:12, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans@at.or.at> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tristan Seligmann wrote:
>>> If you are fetching the upstream revisions / tags into your packaging
>>> repository, you can use the upstream tag exactly as-is, no need to
>>> re-tag (and indeed re-tagging would generally be a bad idea).
>>
>> I think there is a lot of value to always including the Debian upstream/v1.0
>> tag. It provides a standard way to access the upstream version across all
>> repos. There is no such standard out there "in the wild". There are tags
>> like v1.0, 1.0, release-1.0, the-real-1.0, etc. etc.
>
> Renaming the tag does not require retagging, git tag objects (perhaps
> unfortunately) do not include their name.
There are different tag types in git. "Soft" are just named commit
references and indeed can be renamed at will / point to new commits,
however signed tags encode:
object SHA1id
type type-of-above
tag tag-name
tagger normal user name, email, timestamp
tag-message
All signed with gpg. Thus any change to that metadata of a signed tag
will invalidate signature, or be treated as conflicting tag and thus
require --force push.
Unsigned tags should not be publically used for e.g. release identification.
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: