We don't yet have a tag for dmd 2.053 on the Phobos directory, and we should have one. I'm not quite sure what the exact commit was which used for 2.053 though. So, someone who knows that needs to tag it. The same goes for druntime.

d-programming-language.org is failing to build for me due to the last-release build target being broken, and I think that it's because it's assuming stuff that wasn't true for Phobos in for release 2.052, and that's the most recently tagged release. Hopefully, tagging 2.053 will fix it, though maybe it's broken for other reasons.

- Jonathan M Davis

There's a tag for it - v2.053

On 5/14/2011 8:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> We don't yet have a tag for dmd 2.053 on the Phobos directory, and we should have one. I'm not quite sure what the exact commit was which used for 2.053 though. So, someone who knows that needs to tag it. The same goes for druntime.
>
> d-programming-language.org is failing to build for me due to the last-release build target being broken, and I think that it's because it's assuming stuff that wasn't true for Phobos in for release 2.052, and that's the most recently tagged release. Hopefully, tagging 2.053 will fix it, though maybe it's broken for other reasons.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
>

On 2011-05-14 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
> There's a tag for it - v2.053

On github, neither dmd, nor druntime, nor Phobos lists a tag for 2.053. When I run git-fetch to make sure that I have the latest tags, I don't see anything other than what github shows. From the looks of it, to match the tagging schemes that have been being used, dmd should have a dmd-2.053 tag, druntime should have a druntime-2.053 tag, and Phobos should have a Phobos-2.053 tag. No such tags exist. So, I don't know why you think that a v2.053 tag exists on Phobos. Perhaps you tagged it that way locally but didn't push the tags to the main repository? Regardless, no such tags exist on github.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 5/14/2011 11:13 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On 2011-05-14 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
>> There's a tag for it - v2.053
> On github, neither dmd, nor druntime, nor Phobos lists a tag for 2.053. When I run git-fetch to make sure that I have the latest tags, I don't see anything other than what github shows. From the looks of it, to match the tagging schemes that have been being used, dmd should have a dmd-2.053 tag, druntime should have a druntime-2.053 tag, and Phobos should have a Phobos-2.053 tag. No such tags exist. So, I don't know why you think that a v2.053 tag exists on Phobos. Perhaps you tagged it that way locally but didn't push the tags to the main repository? Regardless, no such tags exist on github.
>
>

If I go

    git tag

it shows the tag on my repository. I've done a git push on it, too. What more can I do?

On 2011-05-15 00:10, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/14/2011 11:13 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On 2011-05-14 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> There's a tag for it - v2.053
> > 
> > On github, neither dmd, nor druntime, nor Phobos lists a tag for 2.053. When I run git-fetch to make sure that I have the latest tags, I don't see anything other than what github shows. From the looks of it, to match the tagging schemes that have been being used, dmd should have a dmd-2.053 tag, druntime should have a druntime-2.053 tag, and Phobos should have a Phobos-2.053 tag. No such tags exist. So, I don't know why you think that a v2.053 tag exists on Phobos. Perhaps you tagged it that way locally but didn't push the tags to the main repository? Regardless, no such tags exist on github.
> 
> If I go
> 
>     git tag
> 
> it shows the tag on my repository. I've done a git push on it, too. What more can I do?

I believe that git-push --tags will push the tags, so you probably need to run something like

git-push upstream --tags

I would point out though that v2.053 doesn't match the tag format that we appear to have been using, and I believe that d-programming-language.org relies on the tag being phobos-version (e.g. phobos-2.053), so you should probably rename the tag to phobos-2.053. From the looks of it, the tagging scheme has been the same for dmd and druntime, so I'd expect them to be tagged with dmd-2.053 and druntime-2.053 respectively.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:31 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: [ . . . ]
> I believe that git-push --tags will push the tags, so you probably need to run something like

Isn't git-push somewhat out of date, shouldn't that be git push?  ;-)

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20110515/5a8899bf/attachment.pgp>

On 2011-05-15 00:39, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:31 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: [ . . . ]
> 
> > I believe that git-push --tags will push the tags, so you probably need to run something like
> 
> Isn't git-push somewhat out of date, shouldn't that be git push?  ;-)

Both are valid. There's nothing out-of-date about either.

- Jonathan M Davis

Le 2011-05-15 ? 4:06, Jonathan M Davis a ?crit :

> On 2011-05-15 00:39, Russel Winder wrote:
>> On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:31 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: [ . . . ]
>> 
>>> I believe that git-push --tags will push the tags, so you probably need to run something like
>> 
>> Isn't git-push somewhat out of date, shouldn't that be git push?  ;-)
> 
> Both are valid. There's nothing out-of-date about either.

$ git-push
-bash: git-push: command not found

$ git push
fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git

$ git --version
git version 1.7.2.2

Clearly one works and the other doesn't for me. It used to work with earlier versions. Which version of git do you have?

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

On 2011-05-15 02:07, Michel Fortin wrote:
> Le 2011-05-15 ? 4:06, Jonathan M Davis a ?crit :
> > On 2011-05-15 00:39, Russel Winder wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:31 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: [ . . . ]
> >> 
> >>> I believe that git-push --tags will push the tags, so you probably need to run something like
> >> 
> >> Isn't git-push somewhat out of date, shouldn't that be git push?  ;-)
> > 
> > Both are valid. There's nothing out-of-date about either.
> 
> $ git-push
> -bash: git-push: command not found
> 
> $ git push
> fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git
> 
> $ git --version
> git version 1.7.2.2
> 
> Clearly one works and the other doesn't for me. It used to work with earlier versions. Which version of git do you have?

It's probably a PATH issue. I have git version 1.7.5.1. Depending on your distro, it may or may not have the git-* files in your PATH. On Arch, they're in /usr/lib/git-core, and I had to add that to my PATH. If you're on Windows, I don't know what you need to do to get them to work. The git bash shell doesn't have them by default, and I haven't spent enough time in Windows to make it worth figuring out how to make them available.

I prefer the git-* commands though, since you get command completion with them. Also, the man pages use those names. But it is true that your distro may not have set it up so that they're on the PATH. But you should be able to get them to work but just figuring out which directory they're in on your system and adding them to your PATH.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 15 maj 2011, at 11:16, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> On 2011-05-15 02:07, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> Le 2011-05-15 ? 4:06, Jonathan M Davis a ?crit :
>>> On 2011-05-15 00:39, Russel Winder wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:31 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: [ . . . ]
>>>> 
>>>>> I believe that git-push --tags will push the tags, so you probably need to run something like
>>>> 
>>>> Isn't git-push somewhat out of date, shouldn't that be git push?  ;-)
>>> 
>>> Both are valid. There's nothing out-of-date about either.
>> 
>> $ git-push
>> -bash: git-push: command not found
>> 
>> $ git push
>> fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git
>> 
>> $ git --version
>> git version 1.7.2.2
>> 
>> Clearly one works and the other doesn't for me. It used to work with earlier versions. Which version of git do you have?
> 
> It's probably a PATH issue. I have git version 1.7.5.1. Depending on your distro, it may or may not have the git-* files in your PATH. On Arch, they're in /usr/lib/git-core, and I had to add that to my PATH. If you're on Windows, I don't know what you need to do to get them to work. The git bash shell doesn't have them by default, and I haven't spent enough time in Windows to make it worth figuring out how to make them available.

I found them in /opt/local/libexec/git-core on Mac OS X.

> I prefer the git-* commands though, since you get command completion with them. Also, the man pages use those names. But it is true that your distro may not have set it up so that they're on the PATH. But you should be able to get them to work but just figuring out which directory they're in on your system and adding them to your PATH.

I'm pretty certain that you should get command completion with the "git command" syntax as well.

> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg