Libguestfs - May 2016 - Proposal to start tagging releases in git with v<VERSION>

For historical reasons that don't really matter now, we currently
tag all releases with just the version number, eg:

  commit 6b48977cb7100e4f214b189052d4f0bf61523d11 (HEAD -> master, tag:
1.33.26, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
  Author: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com>
  Date:   Tue May 3 14:49:59 2016 +0100

      Version 1.33.26.

Of course this isn't the way that git versions are normally tagged.
The normal convention is to use "v<VERSION>" (eg.
"v1.33.26").

I propose that I start tagging new releases this way (see the patch
below).  This shouldn't be controversial.

The question is should I tag new releases with the "old style" tags?
I'd prefer not to.  Should I go back and add "v<VERSION>"
tags to all
the old releases?  Again, I'd prefer not to, but could do that if
anyone thinks it's necessary.

Rich.
>From fe9493a5a0dd34d5f3ffc1f5dbe76a8724011225 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Tag versions with "v<VERSION>" instead of just
the version
 number.

This is the normal convention used for tagging git releases.
---
 Makefile.am | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
index f4520c8..cef9129 100644
--- a/Makefile.am
+++ b/Makefile.am
@@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ maintainer-commit:
 # Tag HEAD with current version (only for maintainer).
 
 maintainer-tag:
-	git tag -a $(VERSION) -m "Version $(VERSION) ($(BRANCH_TYPE))" -f
+	git tag -a "v$(VERSION)" -m "Version $(VERSION)
($(BRANCH_TYPE))" -f
 
 # Maintainer only: check EXTRA_DIST rule is complete.
 # (Note you must have done 'make dist')
-- 
2.7.4



-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch
http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html

On Tuesday 03 May 2016 21:27:47 Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
> 
> For historical reasons that don't really matter now, we currently
> tag all releases with just the version number, eg:
> 
>   commit 6b48977cb7100e4f214b189052d4f0bf61523d11 (HEAD -> master, tag:
1.33.26, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
>   Author: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com>
>   Date:   Tue May 3 14:49:59 2016 +0100
> 
>       Version 1.33.26.
> 
> Of course this isn't the way that git versions are normally tagged.
> The normal convention is to use "v<VERSION>" (eg.
"v1.33.26").
> 
> I propose that I start tagging new releases this way (see the patch
> below).  This shouldn't be controversial.
> 
> The question is should I tag new releases with the "old style"
tags?
> I'd prefer not to.  Should I go back and add
"v<VERSION>" tags to all
> the old releases?  Again, I'd prefer not to, but could do that if
> anyone thinks it's necessary.
I've seen both ways used IMHO equally, so I don't have a strong
preference.

Just wondering whether the right moment for changing tag naming would
be when tagging the .0 of a new series.

-- 
Pino Toscano

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:17:00PM +0200, Pino Toscano
wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 May 2016 21:27:47 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > 
> > For historical reasons that don't really matter now, we currently
> > tag all releases with just the version number, eg:
> > 
> >   commit 6b48977cb7100e4f214b189052d4f0bf61523d11 (HEAD -> master,
tag: 1.33.26, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
> >   Author: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com>
> >   Date:   Tue May 3 14:49:59 2016 +0100
> > 
> >       Version 1.33.26.
> > 
> > Of course this isn't the way that git versions are normally
tagged.
> > The normal convention is to use "v<VERSION>" (eg.
"v1.33.26").
> > 
> > I propose that I start tagging new releases this way (see the patch
> > below).  This shouldn't be controversial.
> > 
> > The question is should I tag new releases with the "old
style" tags?
> > I'd prefer not to.  Should I go back and add
"v<VERSION>" tags to all
> > the old releases?  Again, I'd prefer not to, but could do that if
> > anyone thinks it's necessary.
> 
> I've seen both ways used IMHO equally, so I don't have a strong
> preference.
> 
> Just wondering whether the right moment for changing tag naming would
> be when tagging the .0 of a new series.
Perhaps, but I'd say an argument against doing it for a .0 release
would be that it lets us test that our CI & build tools work now
during the development phase.  (Unless you mean .0 of the next
development release, which punts the whole thing far into the future.)

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top