My first (ab)use of the CVS tags

Tomas Mraz tmraz at redhat.com
Thu Aug 4 11:40:05 UTC 2005


On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 12:57 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote :
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 10:38 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 00:29 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > >
> > > > I manually tagged the FC-3 branch where the patch was now included as
> > > > *-1_1_fc3 (where it previously was *-1_fc3) without actually changing the
> > > > release nor anything else in the spec file, and asked plague to rebuild
> > > > that new branch.
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > IMHO, you should have done instead 'TAG_OPTS=-F make tag' of course IF
> > > and ONLY IF the build failed. The tag in CVS should indicate that a the
> > > rpm with the same NVR as in the TAG was created from this exact CVS
> > > contents. 
> 
> This is interesting : One can force a tag to be overwritten? I had no idea
> that could be achieved, and does seem like the proper way of doing things
> if no package has yet been built from the current tag. Thoughts?
We do it in case of build failure regularly in the Core CVS - there is
even a make force-tag target.

> So 1.1.fc3 < 1.fc4? I've been bitten too many times to be able to swear
> that's correct without checking it first ;-) Also, since no "1.fc3"
> package had been built, it doesn't make that much sense to bump the
> release for the build. I personally prefer the suggestion above of
> overwriting the tag, as long as it's used with extreme caution...
1.1.fc3 > 1.fc4 because numeric parts are considered > than alphabetic.

> And I now realize that what I did is plain wrong, since as Michael pointed
> out, someone wanting to check out the CVS files for the "1.fc3" package
> will use the tag where the patch is missing. So I definitely won't do it
> again ;-)
Good. ;-)

-- 
Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com>




More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list