Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 09:24, Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:35:40 +0100, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 16:33, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 16:29, Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:18:51 +0100, Jonathan Wakely >> > > > <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 16:13, Thomas Schwinge >> > > > > <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> > > > > > We have found that the Git 'gcc-9_1_0-release' tag doesn't >> > > > > > correspond to >> > > > > > the actual GCC 9.1 release. The GCC 9.1 release (as per >> > > > > > 'gcc-9.1.0.tar' >> > > > > > as well as 'svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/tags/gcc_9_1_0_release', >> > > > > > r272156) >> > > > >> > > > (Eh, at the end of that 'svn co [...]', it printed that it "Checked out >> > > > revision 272156", but the GCC 9.1 release actually is r270840, and >> > > > r272156 is GCC trunk from a moment ago.) >> > > > >> > > > > > would correspond to Git commit >> > > > > > 3defceaa1a2987fa90296abfbcc85d7e9ad59684 "Update ChangeLog and >> > > > > > version >> > > > > > files for release", but the Git 'gcc-9_1_0-release' tag points one >> > > > > > commit >> > > > > > further: Git commit 1f54d412a517f3a4b82f3dd77517842fb4de099a >> > > > > > "BASE-VER: >> > > > > > Set to 9.1.1". (That's not a big problem; the 'BASE-VER' update is >> > > > > > indeed the only difference.) >> > > > > >> > > > > That's probably my fault, I think I created the tag. >> > > > > >> > > > > > The Git tag can't be corrected now (would it make sense to push a >> > > > > > Git >> > > > > > 'gcc-9_1_0-release-corrected' tag?), but I wanted to post this, to >> > > > > > get it >> > > > > > into the mighty Internet archives; may this note help others who >> > > > > > stumble >> > > > > > over the same thing. >> > > > > >> > > > > Can't we just delete the tag and add it at the right commit? >> > > > >> > > > I don't think that'll be useful: as far as I remember (but please >> > > > correct >> > > > me if I'm wrong!), a 'git fetch' will not re-fetch changed tags, so >> >> Right, see the "DISCUSSION" "On Re-tagging" in 'git tag --help'. >> >> > > I think that's right, but 'git fetch --tags' would update it. >> >> Sure, but who's running that? ;-) >> >> (We shall see if the GitHub etc. mirrors will pick up the updated tag >> automatically.) >> >> > > > different clones might then have different 'gcc-9_1_0-release' tags. >> > > >> > > Which doesn't seem like a problem to me. >> > > >> > > I could create a local tag with that name for any arbitrary revision. >> > > It wouldn't match what's in everybody else's clone, but that's fine. >> > >> > It seems to me that having the master repo have the correct tag is >> > more valuable than everybody having the same tag. >> > >> > And because, as you say, the difference is just one commit, it's not >> > like doing diffs or other commands using the old value of the tag >> > would look at a completely wrong branch or completely different >> > histories. >> >> Note that I'm not objecting to re-tagging. (I had just proposed >> 'gcc-9_1_0-release-corrected' to make obvious what's going on.) >> >> Is there sufficient consensus, or who's going to make a decision? > > After some more discussion on IRC, and with Jakub's approval, I fixed > the tag by running this on the server: > > git update-ref refs/tags/gcc-9_1_0-release > 3defceaa1a2987fa90296abfbcc85d7e9ad59684 > 1f54d412a517f3a4b82f3dd77517842fb4de099a > > The same command can be run in a clone to update local tags.
Or `git fetch --tags -f` (not particularly well documented in the git manual, but intuitive; worked for me). -- Vlad > > Running 'git fetch --tags' will give an error if you already have that tag: > > ! [rejected] gcc-9_1_0-release -> gcc-9_1_0-release > (would clobber existing tag)
