Magnus Hagander writes:
> May I humbly suggest that we actually start calling it "stamp"
> instead, to make it very clear that this is a different operation from
> the "git tag" operation that's done on the tree a bit later?
In the CVS workflow there was no reason to draw a distinction, since we
On 19 August 2011 15:15, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> May I humbly suggest that we actually start calling it "stamp"
> instead, to make it very clear that this is a different operation from
> the "git tag" operation that's done on the tree a bit later?
> Reasonable?
+1
I agree that the ambiguity is
We seem to have been fairly inconsistent in whether we call this
operation "tag" or "stamp", if we look at it historically. With a
little turn towards "tag" lately.
May I humbly suggest that we actually start calling it "stamp"
instead, to make it very clear that this is a different operation from
Tag 9.1rc1.
Branch
--
REL9_1_STABLE
Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/d89b8daf5ee05f9c6fa63695e88d2315a224bf2d
Modified Files
--
configure | 18 +-
configure.in |2 +-
doc/bug.template |
