From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: oliver@monzo.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 34e804d7 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-111.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-111.mimecast.com [207.82.80.111]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id f972458d for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id l34so8134985wrc.12 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:41:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Oliver Beattie Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:40:45 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Git tags To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote= : > Hi Oliver, > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Oliver Beattie wrote: >> Given tags in Git are extremely lightweight, would it be unreasonable >> to keep them around? > > I can keep them around, no problem. I just thought they looked sort of > cluttered, so I removed them, but if it's useful to you, I don't mind > keeping them. Many thanks, that's really helpful :-) > > What use case did you have in mind, anyway, for old tags? Often the only record I will keep of the version I've built/am running is the tag name. Of course this means my process is deficient, I just thought that there was little downside to keeping them around. > > Jason >