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...
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(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>
>
> /max
>
http://about.me/maxandersen
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen