Open Stack

On 25 August 2015 at 10:28, Alexis Lee <lxsli at hpe.com> wrote:
> Thierry Carrez said on Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 04:56:37PM +0200:
>> Tag-every-commit:
>> (+) Conveys clearly that every commit is consumable
>> (-) Current tooling doesn't support this, we need to write something
>> (-) Zillions of tags will make tags ref space a bit unusable by humans
>>
>> Time to time tagging:
>> (+) Aligned with how we do releases everywhere else
>> (-) Makes some commits "special"
>> (-) Making a release still requires someone to care
>>
>> Missing anything ?
>
> Without offering an opinion either way, I'm just wondering how
> tag-every-commit is superior to never tagging? The git SHAs already
> uniquely identify every commit; if you want only those on master, simply
> `git log master`.
>
>
> Alexis (lxsli)

Hey Alexis,

The issue with this is deterministic version counting between commits,
allowing distributed additional commits but still keeping the version
counting centralised.  We use pbr to determine version numbers, which
has logic around git tags to determine version numbering.

For example:
$ git clone master # == version 1
$ echo foo > stuff.txt
$ git add stuff
$ git commit stuff.txt -m "Daviey's awesome value-add"
# # should still == version 1, but without a centralised reference
marker it will be version 2.

--
Kind Regards,
Dave Walker