I am torn now. If being able to tell from Git at what point a release branch was cut for a vote (even if that vote failed) is important then I suggest we go with my "vote/" and "release/" prefix idea, and that a release branch is tagged once for the vote, and then a second time when it passes. Does anyone need to do this? Is it important for anything? Is it worth the complexity and mess it will cause for our tag namespace?
If this is not important, then I suggest we post commit hashes (or whatever else is convenient for enabling people to duplicate the artefact, which is, of course, the primary reason we do this) of the release branch at the point it was cut for a vote to the mailing list. Once a vote passes, we tag this commit without any prefix whatsoever. At the moment, I think I prefer this option. In both instances, I think we need to put together a short rationale (I would do it, but my lack of Git knowledge would hamper my efforts to explain it properly) and present it to the board for them to bless the idea. In both scenarios above, we diverge from the Subversion procedure in a fairly important way. As Jukka has mentioned, the source is traditionally not modified following a successful vote.
