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

[Andrew John Hughes]

2009/9/2 Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org>:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 13:45 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> 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.
>
> OK, apparently I am the only person who assumes tagging something with
> an official release name shows intent to do a release from that commit.
> IMHO it would be better to only tag official releases with official
> (sounding) release names. But in any case, please do communicate about
> the intent of any commit you make to avoid any confusion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
>

I don't disagree they indicate _intent_ to create a release; that's
why I queried the change to begin with.  My point was that the
changeset tagged icedtea6-1.5.2 didn't result in a release with that
name, so can quite happily be moved or just removed altogether.

Given Lillian's e-mail, I think there was some confusion over tag
names (we've never used anything but icedtea6-x or icedtea-x after
all) and that these tags should have instead been named after the
distro package in order to declare their true intent.
-- 
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