-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
3.3.7 git tag was moved? #1272
Comments
I see that the same problem exists with the v3.3.5, v3.3.6, and v3.3.8 tags: they all have the wrong |
I think history might have been rewritten on the master branch? If this is the case I think the reason we can still see the original commits on GitHub is because there are forks that still have those commits and GitHub shares the git objects between forks. Fetching the repository locally and trying to access commit
I agree with @danielbprice that this is a really scary practice and should never be done. Specially given that Go uses git repositories such as GitHub as its source for packages. Rewriting history on the master branch can break everyones integration. |
I'm sorry, this was me, I did reapply those tags on the master branch as they were all applied on forks, in an attempt to get go modules working :-( It didn't work in the end anyway, and we released a v4 properly instead. Tags v3.3.9 and v3.3.10 were applied on master from the start and never tampered with. Apologies for this attempt of a fix, and rest assure that it was the first and the last time we used something like that on the project. You can see the whole discussion about it in #1253 and #1244 Hopefully you can upgrade to the latest v3 release (or even better, to v4 if you meet the required Go version, listed on the README). If there's anything I can do to help (besides never doing this again), please let me know. |
Also, FWIW I reapplied those tags right at the point where the forks were, so they effectively point to the same functionality as before minus the version change (from 3.3.dev to the respective tag) which happened on the forks, not on the master branch. But as I mentioned, if you can use a latter version instead, those tags are nice and clean (and the version too). |
@alexaandru, can you move the tags back to where they were and push the result? If you no longer have the commit objects somewhere, I'm sure the community can help collect them. The fallout from this may be wider than is practical for all dependent projects to fix it up on their end, even if an upgrade is doable. This also breaks builds of old versions, which may not be something that can be fixed up. |
@dhduvall looking into it, but then again it will break for people who pulled it since they were changed.. |
Fair enough; though a) this change was in error, and b) people and projects depending on it will only have been doing so for a few weeks, rather than up to almost a year. There's no perfect answer here. |
Found them all, thanks to
|
Going to push them. Indeed, these tags were depended on for almost a year, the new tags only for 3-5 days, so the people affected by the retagging are a lot more than the ones that could be affected by restoring the tagging. If anyone already updated to a latter version (v3.3.9+) they should be unaffected. Actually, if anyone pulled in the last few days they should have pulled one of the newer tags anyway. Revert it is, before this spreads too wide... |
The tags are now restored: @dhduvall @dmlittle @danielbprice @vishr @im-kulikov Could you please confirm it's working OK on your ends? Thank you and once again sorry for this :( |
v4 still builds OK |
Problem was resolved for 42wim/matterbridge#698 so likely it should be resolved to everyone else affected by this. Will keep this story open for a few more days so that people coming in for this issue can find it easy, and then if no one else has other reports infirming the fix worked, I'll close it. |
Our build dependent on v3.3.7 is working again, and the hashes for the versions are the ones present in my old copy. Thanks for the quick turnaround! |
The least I could do after the mess I caused :( Thank you for the confirmation! Have a great day! :) |
|
Thanks @im-kulikov ! 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 are as I have them, but what you listed for 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 are actually the new tags, the ones I had to revert. I would recommend you delete those from your end and pull the tags again. Also, all the "broken/changed" tags were renamed to |
Note... This is also breaking
|
|
@Skarlso by "this" are you referring to the messing up part (changing them to the new ones) or the trying to fix it part (reverting back to the old ones)? Unfortunately there is nothing more we can do about it. The tags were in use for almost a year so we had to revert. The people that pulled within the last few days (from rewrite till reverting to the old ones) will indeed be affected. Could you possibly upgrade to the latest v3 ? Or remove the offending line from go.sum? |
@alexaandru Yeah the whole thing. :D No worries. Will upgrade. :) Thanks |
Awesome :) and once again, sorry for the inconvenience. |
If the problem is solved, can we close the issue? |
@im-kulikov yes, I think we can now. Thanks! :) |
Issue Description
Until today, we have been using v3.3.7; previously this tag was applied to commit ID 2e9f4ea. However the tag seems to have been moved to a different commit, ba1891b. This breaks
dep
, at least. And it seems like a really scary practice. Why was this done?If you browse to
echo/echo.go
Line 222 in ba1891b
Version/commit
v3.3.7
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: