In order: 1) Yes I know that git tags are mutable, and you don't retain history on them if you are foolish (I'd prefer to use much stronger words) enough to do that, except through others clones of your repo, of course. 2) I understand the convention is delete as see fit. No problem with that at all, a lonely tag without a binary artifact is A OK with me. 3) I understand that my world has a different convention (though I'm very much not alone in my world) see closing sentence. 4) If a repository does not require credentials to access and is linked to on the web, as the staging repo IS, then it most certainly IS *public*. I already pointed out that the scope for issues is limited, however why not just avoid them entirely. 5) To be clear, the tag thing isn't the issue, the result of it is, another artifact with the same name and different contents. The tag thing is just bad taste. Like merlot :-)
It just seems like a dirty approach for a group that prides themselves on doing things right, that's all. I was shocked and surprised to see the email that I was expecting with 32 in it contain 31 again :-o Such things make me sad/disappointed if and only if they're done by projects which *really **matter*, and this one surely does, to me at least. Maybe by sending an email questioning a convention things can change. By laying down and saying nothing, nothing ever will. Again, this is not the right place for such a discussion. Start a new thread and I'll argue to the bitter end, no problem. This seems wrong/OT. (But I'll keep taking the bait if you guys keep feeding it to me!) Regards, Fred. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Baptiste Mathus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2013/1/30 Fred Cooke <[email protected]> > >> Mark, >> >> There is no need to educate me on SVN semantics, I used it for quite a >> few years before I found git and abandoned it entirely. This is not about >> that. >> >> There was an artifact with a name on a public repository free to be >> distributed as the public see fit under a specific name. > > > Stop here, that's the point. > "staging" repository isn't a real *public *one. Staging is not exposed at > all by default. > Nobody uses it and only willing people will have seen it. > > Even mojo developers doesn't (shouldn't) use by default. Only when > activating a precise profile (even better is only adding the precise new > staging repo, not the group one, but it's a bit more cumbersome). > > Cheers > > -- Baptiste >
