The hash points indirectly at the commit because it carries signature information. On Mar 4, 2014 12:00 AM, "Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, I guess I was just confused, because I expected the hash > provided in the message to point to the HEAD commit in the tag, not > something specific to the tag's own blob. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > Deleting the rc tag? > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Nevermind and disregard. I'm mistaken. We voted on 3478f71a as > >> 1.5.1-rc3... this tag is correct. > >> > >> However, I am confused about the previous push delete: > >> "Updated Tags: refs/tags/1.5.1-rc3 [deleted] c485b41f7" > >> > >> -- > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > This does not look correct. The 1.5.1 tag should have been the GPG > >> > signed one that Josh was going to create from the 1.5.1-rc3 > >> > (c485b41f7). This is a different SHA1 entirely. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Christopher L Tubbs II > >> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:42 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Repository: accumulo > >> >> Updated Tags: refs/tags/1.5.1 [created] 6ce236826 > >> >
