jfbu

For a real life example where tags would have helped see this Sphinx comment. There are no tags associated to releases prior to 0.10 (EDIT: I was wrong here sorry! I did not scroll enough output of git tag on my small screen) and one has to search manually for appropriate commit messages and then check them out. And for tags since 0.10, with the exception of 0.14, they are as reported seemingly annotating some "mirrored" history, which has the commits but with other SHAs and are not direct ancestors...

For a real life example where tags would have helped see this Sphinx comment. There are no tags associated to releases prior to 0.10 and one has to search manually for appropriate commit messages and then check them out. And for tags since 0.10, with the exception of 0.14, they are as reported seemingly annotating some "mirrored" history, which has the commits but with other SHAs and not direct ancestors of current master tip. For example revision 5862 has two associated commits: $ git checkout docutils-0.10...

For a real life example where tags would have helped see this Sphinx comment. There are no tags associated to releases prior to 0.10 and one has to search manually for appropriate commit messages and then check them out. And for tags since 0.10, with the exception of 0.14, they are as reported seemingly annotating some "mirrored" history, which has the commits but with other SHAs and not direct ancestors of current master tip. For example revision 5862 has two associated commits: $ git checkout docutils-0.10...

Sorry for one more, but I went too fast. No there is a difference between the git commit messages. The first one (the one tagged by docutils-0.21.-2) contains git-svn-id: http://svn.code.sf.net/p/docutils/code/trunk/docutils@9649 929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04 whereas the one in master branch (a direct ancestor to master tip) contains git-svn-id: http://svn.code.sf.net/p/docutils/code/trunk@9649 929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04 i.e. former has code/trunk/docutils@9649 and latter has co...

The parent of docutils-0.21.2 refers to the same revision as a more direct ancestor in master branch: docutils$ git log -1 docutils-0.21.2~ commit b43eb031ecb2de7d2d1a5e4d160ebe15a0f9a7f0 Author: grubert <grubert@929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04> Date: Tue Apr 23 18:54:26 2024 +0000 Version 0.21.2 git-svn-id: http://svn.code.sf.net/p/docutils/code/trunk/docutils@9649 929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04 $ git log -1 323957acb commit 323957acb17369d38bd31c81dfe543ae46ae9113 Author: grubert <grubert@929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04>...

I git cloned again with https://repo.or.cz/docutils.git not git protocol and got (as expected) the same result. Notice that ab29cf78ae24a9 is indeed the doctuils-0.21.2 tag but it is not the commit or one of the commits in recent history referring to 0.21.2 release. $ git log --oneline --grep 0.21.2 0353066fb Fix headers for release 0.21.2 f344d4daf releasing 0.21.2 323957acb Version 0.21.2 6729e38e3 version 0.21.2b.dev It is as if all docutils-... tags refer to some other branch, and the origin...

Hello, but docutils-0.21.2 is not resolving to f344d4daf but to ab29cf78ae24 docutils$ git log --oneline f344d4daf..HEAD | wc -l 201 docutils$ git log --oneline docutils-0.21.2..HEAD | wc -l 9344 ?? git log -1 f344d4daf commit f344d4dafcd68cc9c315a4700b5f0efb5dc2e9e7 Author: grubert <grubert@929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04> Date: Tue Apr 23 19:10:06 2024 +0000 releasing 0.21.2 git-svn-id: http://svn.code.sf.net/p/docutils/code/trunk@9651 929543f6-e4f2-0310-98a6-ba3bd3dd1d04

Git repo lacking tags