/hg/release/icedtea6-1.5: Added tag icedtea6-1.5.3 for changeset...

[Andrew John Hughes]

2009/9/2 Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 23:15 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>> 2009/9/1  <langel at icedtea.classpath.org>:
>>>> changeset 503129230ba0 in /hg/release/icedtea6-1.5
>>>> details: http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/release/icedtea6-1.5?cmd=changeset;node=503129230ba0
>>>> author: langel
>>>> date: Tue Sep 01 12:37:18 2009 -0400
>>>>
>>>>        Added tag icedtea6-1.5.3 for changeset d0593233c9ce
>>> Huh? Has there been a 1.5.2 release? I didn't see an announcement.
>>
>> Although it is technically possible to move a tag after it has been
>> created, I don't think it is a good idea. Allocating a new tag name
>> seems a better choice.
>
> Not to me.  We surely don't want phantom tags for nonexistent releases.
> This is very bad practice; IMO, as usual.
>

That's my opinion as well.  We now seem to have two tags (1.5.2 and
1.5.3) for non-existent releases.  The last release is still 1.5.1 and
that's the only one of these I can download a tarball for from
http://icedtea.classpath.org/download/source/.  I agree the tags
shouldn't move, but that only applies after a release has being made.
I doubt anyone is going to be relying on this 1.5.2 tag as the only
evidence of it is a single commit e-mail.  I also think it should be
fairly obvious that adding a tag does not constitute a release, but it
seems that isn't the case.

> Andrew.
>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8