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

[Andrew John Hughes]

2009/9/2 Lillian Angel <langel at redhat.com>:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> diffstat:
>>>
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>> .hgtags |    1 +
>>>
>>> diffs (8 lines):
>>>
>>> diff -r d0593233c9ce -r 503129230ba0 .hgtags
>>> --- a/.hgtags   Tue Sep 01 12:37:08 2009 -0400
>>> +++ b/.hgtags   Tue Sep 01 12:37:18 2009 -0400
>>> @@ -17,3 +17,4 @@ ffe92bbe7e8466b323f0aedbdac4b6ecf44eafe2
>>>  ffe92bbe7e8466b323f0aedbdac4b6ecf44eafe2 icedtea6-1.5
>>>  3b93da7c778a0a5147db1eec28218a8df462161d icedtea6-1.5.1
>>>  d70ae78f89c2cd9cb782f197804a5bcf99ca9949 icedtea6-1.5.2
>>> +d0593233c9ce2110854a97a36eda57996ba34d0e icedtea6-1.5.3
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Huh? Has there been a 1.5.2 release? I didn't see an announcement.
>>
>
> Sorry, we were just building rpms for RHEL (including some important
> patches), there is no official release. I realize this is out of order,
> should I make a formal annoucement?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Lillian
>

Are we now at the point on the 1.5 branch where a release would make
sense?  If so, then it should be tagged as icedtea6-1.5.2, tarballed
and announced.  The two current tags, icedtea6-1.5.2 and
icedtea6-1.5.3, don't correspond to releases and should be removed.

As regards tagging the tree, I don't see a problem with applying tags
as needed for distro builds.  They just shouldn't use the icedtea6-x
syntax unless there is also going to be a formal release (tarball,
announcement, et. al.) - that's what's caused the confusion here.  If
you look at the tags used by GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/tags/)
you will see they use all sorts of things beyond release markers.  So
if you need to mark the revision a RHEL package was based on, for
instance, you could just use something like rhel-<package version> as
a tag.

Hope that clarifies things,
Cheers,
-- 
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