Proposal to add additional annotated tags

[Florian Weimer]

On 10/16/2017 08:21 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:21:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I would like to add the following annotated tags:
>>
>> 00cdcf5a4110f7ac68651f5662693c82f7bffaca   glibc-2.26.9000
>> 58557c229319a3b8d2eefdb62e7df95089eabe37   glibc-2.25.9000
>> e720d3d9fea2058adb3de2905f1a399ad3e812ff   glibc-2.24.9000
>> c6f391dbf9b3b33e5bc0599dd96c40a0eff2f02b   glibc-2.23.9000
>> 1b15ff4810748abee11b949e6faa115f3f2d20f4   glibc-2.22.9000
>> d5a8b70560cf758218c13bef6f1dd93ce216424f   glibc-2.21.9000
>> 21c83793a223666b8cfe438d81615941896b355c   glibc-2.20.9000
>> d5b396c1c89ed3026fc89bfcdd72b14d59972e45   glibc-2.19.9000
>> 6c1fd795711bb510cffaab5ad2ab2739bb8db210   glibc-2.18.9000
>> 2c8bfe7d6f22c4a599894846bf1715d93b295f53   glibc-2.17.9000
>> e64ac02c24b43659048622714afdc92fedf561fa   glibc-2.16.9000
> 
> As the last commit is from the ports tree that has no common history
> with glibc-2.16.0, I suggest tagging
> e64ac02c24b43659048622714afdc92fedf561fa as glibc-2.16-ports-before-merge,
> and the subsequent merge commit e84eabb3871c9b39e59323bf3f6b98c2ca9d1cd0
> as glibc-2.16.9000.

Okay, that is certainly a better solution.

Should I use .90 in the tags and not .9000?  I'm asking because

-#define RELEASE "stable"
-#define VERSION "2.26"
+#define RELEASE "development"
+#define VERSION "2.26.90"

we use .90 versions during development.  (I mistakenly assumed that this 
was something Fedora-specific.)  I switched to .9000 to avoid collisions 
with point-release tarballs from a long-lived release branch branch.

Thanks,
Florian