Re: move to git

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello Eric, Gary,

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:51:48PM CEST:
> On 16 Apr 2008, at 16:47, Eric Blake wrote:
>> there are now some stale tags
>> in savannah's libtool.git, which point to commits prior to your  
>> various git-
>> filter operations (for example, the tag release-2-2-2
>> http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=libtool.git;a=tag;h=c7bb42
>> points to http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/? 
>> p=libtool.git;a=commit;h=2bbe5d
>> rather than 
>> http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=libtool.git;a=commit;h=724f291).
>> Are you planning on rewinding those tags to point to something more
>> appropriate?  And if so, please post the new SHA1 of the tags.

Yes, I think I should do so.  How can I do it?  And what's more, what
did I forget to do so that this could happen?

> Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you're looking in the wrong place  
> (an old libtool.git; stale browser cache?).

Please try again, Gary.   724f29122c655bdbda845af92a3ca0cf36aaa67d is
the tree that designates 2.2.2.

>> Gary, since you released 2.2.2, would you mind matching the convention 
>> of other savannah git projects and do:
>>
>> $ git tag -s -m 2.2.2 v2.2.2 724f2912
>> $ git push origin refs/tags/v2.2.2
>
> I'd be happy to run:
>
>   $ git tag -s -m 2.2.2 v2.2.2 2bbe5d
>   $ git push origin refs/tags/v2.2.2
>
> If you agree that is the right thing to do?

No, that's not right.

>> That way, gnulib's git-version-gen script will produce a meaningful  
>> output on libtool (even though we are not presently using
>> git-version-gen in the libtool bootstrap).  I'd do it, but then the
>> gnupg signature would be mine  instead of yours.
>
> Playing devil's advocate:

Whether 'git describe' produces meaningful output is independent of
whether we should use git-version-gen.

Cheers,
Ralf