[jbosstools-dev] ATTENTION REQUIRED: missing tags

Tue May 5 06:35:32 EDT 2015

On 4 May 2015, at 20:50, Nick Boldt wrote:

> Whoah, now. Tagging the tip of the 4.2.x branch and calling it 
> something
> like 4.2.1.Final is a bad, and inaccurate plan.

I was mainly thinking about the sea of alpha/betas that have not been 
tagged.

> If you need to dig up the SHAs for a given historical build, they can 
> be
> found here:
>
> http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/builds/stable
>
> For example, the SHAs that went into JBT 4.2.1.Final are here:
>
> http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/builds/stable/jbosstools-4.2.1.Final-build-core/2014-12-14_19-43-15-B320/logs/ALL_REVISIONS.txt

I took this and massaged into a more usable format:

`jbosstools/jbosstools-aerogear,4586f4e2ccab589cc8d3f9c0a27b07cb0b60054f, 
jbosstools-4.1.2.Final`

wrote a python script that did this:

```
ERROR: jbosstools/jbosstools-aerogear: tag 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' not 
found.
Create 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with sha: 
'4586f4e2ccab589cc8d3f9c0a27b07cb0b60054f' in 
'jbosstools/jbosstools-aerogear' ? y
Tag created!
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-arquillian has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: '512a4eb9c86e536609548f89e488e6de59a05997'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-base has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: 'a2fc76fa5077ead6c157018c7007be78889b278b'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-central has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: 'a67351bc616681776c4f3e98bc9dae37dbf61cbd'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-forge has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: 'ec277568d25799042c1b45bfc9a6717ecacc3c18'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-hibernate has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: '9b968a7902f2f3a9e3d7e8c4253683f7268e542a'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-javaee has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: '592119339d9621a0ee8c3ce1e48dd6b1a4c4cd31'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-jst has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with expected 
sha: '7e2bde795ba9156ce3d1a6ea96aa29ef85e1b003'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-livereload has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: '715cd60d1be30e8c8bf21e27328733bbf2c7d3ed'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-openshift has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: 'a5693dad2e041a3eaf22745b7f09c58b46538b8e'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-portlet has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: 'b78ad47e21de05d7e8fe770a0b3335de006d43bb'
ERROR: jbosstools/jbosstools-server: tag 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' not 
found.
Create 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with sha: 
'1a43a10c94dc70af396589f46680de33333bfa6c' in 
'jbosstools/jbosstools-server' ? y
Tag created!
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-vpe has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with expected 
sha: '86607d3ca6614b9ebe5a17205f0244676596fd8f'
OK: jbosstools/jbosstools-webservices has 'jbosstools-4.1.2.Final' with 
expected sha: 'fa9850e334f250eb1ea32951b743bf32d951e391'
```

so now for 4.1.2.Final server and aerogear is fixed.

I'm now wading through the rest I can find. "awesome - not"

/max

> As to the actual steps for tagging from a SHA... I'm no gitsplainer, 
> but
> I believe this is all you need to do:
>
> git tag <tagname> <SHA-of-the-commit>
>
> If that's incorrect, I'm sure Max will correct me.
>
> Nick
>
> On 05/01/2015 09:23 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>> On 1 May 2015, at 23:33, Rob Stryker wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe I'm missing something, but, how do we go and accurately tag
>>> previous releases? Do we have the old SHA tags stored somewhere for
>>> old builds?  Otherwise I don't see how its possible to go and
>>> accurately tag our previous releases.
>>
>> That is what I asked Nick about since we have been supposed to gather
>> that for all builds. Waiting for the answer.
>>
>> But if not there, then you can start by tagging the tip of the branch
>> they should have been made on.
>>
>> /max
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 05/01/2015 05:11 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>>> If you want the 100% method we need to build from the tag, meaning
>>>> Dev need start doing their tags and declare them into the build.
>>>>
>>>> But can we tackle one issue at the time, please :)
>>>>
>>>> I would like to at least have our past final releases tagged
>>>> consistently.
>>>>
>>>> We got it for most - just a few stands out.
>>>>
>>>> /max
>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 01 May 2015, at 16:51, Rob Stryker <rstryker at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/29/2015 01:54 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> I would prefer it actually tagged the sha1 that was used instead 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> just assumed used.
>>>>> Are we any closer to this happening?  What's still 'missing' to 
>>>>> make
>>>>> this a possibility?
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>>>>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>
>>
>> /max
>> http://about.me/maxandersen
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>
>
> -- 
> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
> http://nick.divbyzero.com
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

/max
http://about.me/maxandersen