-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/21/2016 10:17 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > I count 97 such broken tags; and I verified I can push replacement tags (tag > 68c0e85 was for FINDUTILS_4_3_5-1; if > you do a fresh clone, tag 68c0e85 is now gone, and replaced by an > identically-named annotated tag 6ee72b929 with my > email as tagger). I'm planning to script the conversion of all the tags, but > am trying to figure out if it is > worth back-dating the tags, and whether an unsigned annotated tag or a > simpler lightweight tag is the better thing > to push in place of each tag that gets corrected.
So why is this "broken"? I can see 'git fsck' still running well with version 2.1.4 while a later version complains about it. Isn't this a (maybe known?) regression or break in backward-compatibility in git itself? Have a nice day, Berny -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYCzCOAAoJEEZQLveWkXGV9WsH/0961mhqEP5I3W3jUF85gAQu 3mqfTkqbQ6pTc00a0Br+ZuX3gPuAqhBhMA1a3brgR9BueoskXz5+2VaSSZTHLYze JPz3uc8SEmUlLPL0FSwzdk1DI4kTLkB0MqExWhhAiPNrGUBtc4+w2bnS2bed9N+8 YFhhWTW4YGM/7xQbvLWPMD64Q3faRlLp4/E8THSCed8gzFnmRclSYVavvlHZ0C/Y 4WzBH7TSIUEksUxA6USSEbElYYP9CBmoEQ5siPg4dZW7ws9gYr0K9UXWMe9DDTxi iHCDF2dVy+4oQ+eQzg3HqgonVGJ5iVDxL3auujixJ/Vi+/OvF73ZCsG5alDJxDA= =NVBy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
