From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric S. Raymond" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Tag cleanup Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 06:24:07 -0500 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs Message-ID: <20140109112407.GA4818@thyrsus.com> References: <20140109053729.E9DC43805F2@snark.thyrsus.com> <83a9f5ej2b.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389266690 31510 80.91.229.3 (9 Jan 2014 11:24:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 09 12:24:58 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W1DjL-0007eN-3c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:24:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51296 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1DjK-0002J0-Lt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:24:54 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52957) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1DjD-0002D7-2l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:24:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1Dj8-0006bz-Qq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:24:47 -0500 Original-Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:37507 helo=snark.thyrsus.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1Dj4-0006ah-3w; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:24:38 -0500 Original-Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AAE3D3805F2; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 06:24:07 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83a9f5ej2b.fsf@gnu.org> X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 71.162.243.5 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:167884 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii : > I think everything except EMACS_PRETEST_* and emacs-xx.yy (why the > different letter-case and syntax, btw?) should be removed. The tags beginning eith uppercase EMACS and containing _ where you would expect . are inherited CVS tags; . was not a legal tag character in CVS. After the switchover to bzr, whover was making release tags (probably Stefan) started using the more natural emacs-xx.yy convention, but did not rename the old tags. I renamed the old CVS-style release tags to corresponding emacs-xx.yy tags because my philosophy about conversions is to use the idioms of the target VCS wherever possible, making the join between older and newer portions of the history invisible. I didn't rename the *PRETEST* tags because I wasn't sure we'd keep them. I agree with you that if we keep them they would be better renamed something like emacs-pretest-xx.yy.zz. > Those > other tags are of no importance once the corresponding features have > landed on mainline. For example, emacs-bidi-base can certainly go. The *-base tags are almost certainly automatically generated CVS artifacts that can be removed, but I am conservative by habit in making such changes. > But please wait for the "owners" of those other tags to speak up, I > don't want to usurp anyone's tags. I don't either. > The fate of the pretest tags depends on whether we will continue using > such tags in the future. Emacs pretests are normally quite long, so a > pretest emacs-24.3.90 is very similar to a released version, and the > number of commits between it and the next pretest will generally be > very large. So, if the git experts say that "git describe" and its > middle field are important, I'd rather see there a small enough number > than something of 6 digits. We have two policy questions: 1. Continue using pretest tags? If so, I will rename as you suggest. If not, I will delete them. I have no strong preference here. 2. What form do we intend to use for the value of emacs-repository-version? The choices are raw SHA1 or git describe format; others are theoretically possible but it is normal git practice to choose one of those two. I advocate the latter as I think the format is more informative to humans. These are not my decisions to make unless everybody yawns and says "don't care". I would much prefer to see a list consensus or, failing that, maintainer fiat. -- Eric S. Raymond