git/Documentation/git-tag.txt

393 lines
13 KiB
Text
Raw Normal View History

git-tag(1)
==========
NAME
----
git-tag - Create, list, delete or verify a tag object signed with GPG
SYNOPSIS
--------
[verse]
'git tag' [-a | -s | -u <keyid>] [-f] [-m <msg> | -F <file>] [-e]
<tagname> [<commit> | <object>]
'git tag' -d <tagname>...
'git tag' [-n[<num>]] -l [--contains <commit>] [--no-contains <commit>]
[--points-at <object>] [--column[=<options>] | --no-column]
[--create-reflog] [--sort=<key>] [--format=<format>]
[--merged <commit>] [--no-merged <commit>] [<pattern>...]
'git tag' -v [--format=<format>] <tagname>...
DESCRIPTION
-----------
Add a tag reference in `refs/tags/`, unless `-d/-l/-v` is given
to delete, list or verify tags.
Unless `-f` is given, the named tag must not yet exist.
If one of `-a`, `-s`, or `-u <keyid>` is passed, the command
creates a 'tag' object, and requires a tag message. Unless
`-m <msg>` or `-F <file>` is given, an editor is started for the user to type
in the tag message.
If `-m <msg>` or `-F <file>` is given and `-a`, `-s`, and `-u <keyid>`
are absent, `-a` is implied.
Otherwise, a tag reference that points directly at the given object
(i.e., a lightweight tag) is created.
A GnuPG signed tag object will be created when `-s` or `-u
<keyid>` is used. When `-u <keyid>` is not used, the
committer identity for the current user is used to find the
GnuPG key for signing. The configuration variable `gpg.program`
is used to specify custom GnuPG binary.
Tag objects (created with `-a`, `-s`, or `-u`) are called "annotated"
tags; they contain a creation date, the tagger name and e-mail, a
tagging message, and an optional GnuPG signature. Whereas a
"lightweight" tag is simply a name for an object (usually a commit
object).
Annotated tags are meant for release while lightweight tags are meant
for private or temporary object labels. For this reason, some git
commands for naming objects (like `git describe`) will ignore
lightweight tags by default.
OPTIONS
-------
-a::
--annotate::
Make an unsigned, annotated tag object
-s::
--sign::
Make a GPG-signed tag, using the default e-mail address's key.
The default behavior of tag GPG-signing is controlled by `tag.gpgSign`
configuration variable if it exists, or disabled otherwise.
See linkgit:git-config[1].
--no-sign::
Override `tag.gpgSign` configuration variable that is
set to force each and every tag to be signed.
-u <keyid>::
--local-user=<keyid>::
Make a GPG-signed tag, using the given key.
-f::
--force::
Replace an existing tag with the given name (instead of failing)
-d::
--delete::
Delete existing tags with the given names.
-v::
--verify::
Verify the GPG signature of the given tag names.
-n<num>::
<num> specifies how many lines from the annotation, if any,
tag: implicitly supply --list given another list-like option Change the "tag" command to implicitly turn on its --list mode when provided with a list-like option such as --contains, --points-at etc. This is for consistency with how "branch" works. When "branch" is given a list-like option, such as --contains, it implicitly provides --list. Before this change "tag" would error out on those sorts of invocations. I.e. while both of these worked for "branch": git branch --contains v2.8.0 <pattern> git branch --list --contains v2.8.0 <pattern> Only the latter form worked for "tag": git tag --contains v2.8.0 '*rc*' git tag --list --contains v2.8.0 '*rc*' Now "tag", like "branch", will implicitly supply --list when a list-like option is provided, and no other conflicting non-list options (such as -d) are present on the command-line. Spelunking through the history via: git log --reverse -p -G'only allowed with' -- '*builtin*tag*c' Reveals that there was no good reason for not allowing this in the first place. The --contains option added in 32c35cfb1e ("git-tag: Add --contains option", 2009-01-26) made this an error. All the other subsequent list-like options that were added copied its pattern of making this usage an error. The only tests that break as a result of this change are tests that were explicitly checking that this "branch-like" usage wasn't permitted. Change those failing tests to check that this invocation mode is permitted, add extra tests for the list-like options we weren't testing, and tests to ensure that e.g. we don't toggle the list mode in the presence of other conflicting non-list options. With this change errors messages such as "--contains option is only allowed with -l" don't make sense anymore, since options like --contain turn on -l. Instead we error out when list-like options such as --contain are used in conjunction with conflicting options such as -d or -v. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-24 18:40:55 +00:00
are printed when using -l. Implies `--list`.
+
The default is not to print any annotation lines.
If no number is given to `-n`, only the first line is printed.
If the tag is not annotated, the commit message is displayed instead.
-l::
--list::
List tags. With optional `<pattern>...`, e.g. `git tag --list
'v-*'`, list only the tags that match the pattern(s).
+
Running "git tag" without arguments also lists all tags. The pattern
is a shell wildcard (i.e., matched using fnmatch(3)). Multiple
patterns may be given; if any of them matches, the tag is shown.
tag: implicitly supply --list given another list-like option Change the "tag" command to implicitly turn on its --list mode when provided with a list-like option such as --contains, --points-at etc. This is for consistency with how "branch" works. When "branch" is given a list-like option, such as --contains, it implicitly provides --list. Before this change "tag" would error out on those sorts of invocations. I.e. while both of these worked for "branch": git branch --contains v2.8.0 <pattern> git branch --list --contains v2.8.0 <pattern> Only the latter form worked for "tag": git tag --contains v2.8.0 '*rc*' git tag --list --contains v2.8.0 '*rc*' Now "tag", like "branch", will implicitly supply --list when a list-like option is provided, and no other conflicting non-list options (such as -d) are present on the command-line. Spelunking through the history via: git log --reverse -p -G'only allowed with' -- '*builtin*tag*c' Reveals that there was no good reason for not allowing this in the first place. The --contains option added in 32c35cfb1e ("git-tag: Add --contains option", 2009-01-26) made this an error. All the other subsequent list-like options that were added copied its pattern of making this usage an error. The only tests that break as a result of this change are tests that were explicitly checking that this "branch-like" usage wasn't permitted. Change those failing tests to check that this invocation mode is permitted, add extra tests for the list-like options we weren't testing, and tests to ensure that e.g. we don't toggle the list mode in the presence of other conflicting non-list options. With this change errors messages such as "--contains option is only allowed with -l" don't make sense anymore, since options like --contain turn on -l. Instead we error out when list-like options such as --contain are used in conjunction with conflicting options such as -d or -v. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-24 18:40:55 +00:00
+
This option is implicitly supplied if any other list-like option such
as `--contains` is provided. See the documentation for each of those
options for details.
--sort=<key>::
Sort based on the key given. Prefix `-` to sort in
descending order of the value. You may use the --sort=<key> option
multiple times, in which case the last key becomes the primary
key. Also supports "version:refname" or "v:refname" (tag
names are treated as versions). The "version:refname" sort
versioncmp: generalize version sort suffix reordering The 'versionsort.prereleaseSuffix' configuration variable, as its name suggests, is supposed to only deal with tagnames with prerelease suffixes, and allows sorting those prerelease tags in a user-defined order before the suffixless main release tag, instead of sorting them simply lexicographically. However, the previous changes in this series resulted in an interesting and useful property of version sort: - The empty string as a configured suffix matches all tagnames, including tagnames without any suffix, but - tagnames containing a "real" configured suffix are still ordered according to that real suffix, because any longer suffix takes precedence over the empty string. Exploiting this property we can easily generalize suffix reordering and specify the order of tags with given suffixes not only before but even after a main release tag by using the empty suffix to denote the position of the main release tag, without any algorithm changes: $ git -c versionsort.prereleaseSuffix=-alpha \ -c versionsort.prereleaseSuffix=-beta \ -c versionsort.prereleaseSuffix="" \ -c versionsort.prereleaseSuffix=-gamma \ -c versionsort.prereleaseSuffix=-delta \ tag -l --sort=version:refname 'v3.0*' v3.0-alpha1 v3.0-beta1 v3.0 v3.0-gamma1 v3.0-delta1 Since 'versionsort.prereleaseSuffix' is not a fitting name for a configuration variable to control this more general suffix reordering, introduce the new variable 'versionsort.suffix'. Still keep the old configuration variable name as a deprecated alias, though, to avoid suddenly breaking setups already using it. Ignore the old variable if both old and new configuration variables are set, but emit a warning so users will be aware of it and can fix their configuration. Extend the documentation to describe and add a test to check this more general behavior. Note: since the empty suffix matches all tagnames, tagnames with suffixes not included in the configuration are listed together with the suffixless main release tag, ordered lexicographically right after that, i.e. before tags with suffixes listed in the configuration following the empty suffix. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-12-08 14:24:01 +00:00
order can also be affected by the "versionsort.suffix"
configuration variable.
The keys supported are the same as those in `git for-each-ref`.
Sort order defaults to the value configured for the `tag.sort`
variable if it exists, or lexicographic order otherwise. See
linkgit:git-config[1].
--color[=<when>]::
Respect any colors specified in the `--format` option. The
`<when>` field must be one of `always`, `never`, or `auto` (if
`<when>` is absent, behave as if `always` was given).
-i::
--ignore-case::
Sorting and filtering tags are case insensitive.
--column[=<options>]::
--no-column::
Display tag listing in columns. See configuration variable
column.tag for option syntax.`--column` and `--no-column`
without options are equivalent to 'always' and 'never' respectively.
+
This option is only applicable when listing tags without annotation lines.
--contains [<commit>]::
Only list tags which contain the specified commit (HEAD if not
tag: implicitly supply --list given another list-like option Change the "tag" command to implicitly turn on its --list mode when provided with a list-like option such as --contains, --points-at etc. This is for consistency with how "branch" works. When "branch" is given a list-like option, such as --contains, it implicitly provides --list. Before this change "tag" would error out on those sorts of invocations. I.e. while both of these worked for "branch": git branch --contains v2.8.0 <pattern> git branch --list --contains v2.8.0 <pattern> Only the latter form worked for "tag": git tag --contains v2.8.0 '*rc*' git tag --list --contains v2.8.0 '*rc*' Now "tag", like "branch", will implicitly supply --list when a list-like option is provided, and no other conflicting non-list options (such as -d) are present on the command-line. Spelunking through the history via: git log --reverse -p -G'only allowed with' -- '*builtin*tag*c' Reveals that there was no good reason for not allowing this in the first place. The --contains option added in 32c35cfb1e ("git-tag: Add --contains option", 2009-01-26) made this an error. All the other subsequent list-like options that were added copied its pattern of making this usage an error. The only tests that break as a result of this change are tests that were explicitly checking that this "branch-like" usage wasn't permitted. Change those failing tests to check that this invocation mode is permitted, add extra tests for the list-like options we weren't testing, and tests to ensure that e.g. we don't toggle the list mode in the presence of other conflicting non-list options. With this change errors messages such as "--contains option is only allowed with -l" don't make sense anymore, since options like --contain turn on -l. Instead we error out when list-like options such as --contain are used in conjunction with conflicting options such as -d or -v. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-24 18:40:55 +00:00
specified). Implies `--list`.
ref-filter: add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-ref Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains option in addition to their longstanding --contains options. This allows for finding the last-good rollout tag given a known-bad <commit>. Given a hypothetically bad commit cf5c7253e0, the git version to revert to can be found with this hacky two-liner: (git tag -l 'v[0-9]*'; git tag -l --contains cf5c7253e0 'v[0-9]*') | sort | uniq -c | grep -E '^ *1 ' | awk '{print $2}' | tail -n 10 With this new --no-contains option the same can be achieved with: git tag -l --no-contains cf5c7253e0 'v[0-9]*' | sort | tail -n 10 As the filtering machinery is shared between the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands, implement this for those commands too. A practical use for this with "branch" is e.g. finding branches which were branched off between v2.8.0 and v2.10.0: git branch --contains v2.8.0 --no-contains v2.10.0 The "describe" command also has a --contains option, but its semantics are unrelated to what tag/branch/for-each-ref use --contains for. A --no-contains option for "describe" wouldn't make any sense, other than being exactly equivalent to not supplying --contains at all, which would be confusing at best. Add a --without option to "tag" as an alias for --no-contains, for consistency with --with and --contains. The --with option is undocumented, and possibly the only user of it is Junio (<xmqqefy71iej.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>). But it's trivial to support, so let's do that. The additions to the the test suite are inverse copies of the corresponding --contains tests. With this change --no-contains for tag, branch & for-each-ref is just as well tested as the existing --contains option. In addition to those tests, add a test for "tag" which asserts that --no-contains won't find tree/blob tags, which is slightly unintuitive, but consistent with how --contains works & is documented. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-24 18:40:57 +00:00
--no-contains [<commit>]::
Only list tags which don't contain the specified commit (HEAD if
not specified). Implies `--list`.
--merged [<commit>]::
Only list tags whose commits are reachable from the specified
commit (`HEAD` if not specified).
--no-merged [<commit>]::
Only list tags whose commits are not reachable from the specified
commit (`HEAD` if not specified).
--points-at <object>::
Only list tags of the given object (HEAD if not
specified). Implies `--list`.
-m <msg>::
--message=<msg>::
Use the given tag message (instead of prompting).
If multiple `-m` options are given, their values are
concatenated as separate paragraphs.
Implies `-a` if none of `-a`, `-s`, or `-u <keyid>`
is given.
-F <file>::
--file=<file>::
Take the tag message from the given file. Use '-' to
read the message from the standard input.
Implies `-a` if none of `-a`, `-s`, or `-u <keyid>`
is given.
-e::
--edit::
The message taken from file with `-F` and command line with
`-m` are usually used as the tag message unmodified.
This option lets you further edit the message taken from these sources.
--cleanup=<mode>::
This option sets how the tag message is cleaned up.
The '<mode>' can be one of 'verbatim', 'whitespace' and 'strip'. The
'strip' mode is default. The 'verbatim' mode does not change message at
all, 'whitespace' removes just leading/trailing whitespace lines and
'strip' removes both whitespace and commentary.
--create-reflog::
Create a reflog for the tag. To globally enable reflogs for tags, see
`core.logAllRefUpdates` in linkgit:git-config[1].
The negated form `--no-create-reflog` only overrides an earlier
`--create-reflog`, but currently does not negate the setting of
`core.logAllRefUpdates`.
--format=<format>::
A string that interpolates `%(fieldname)` from a tag ref being shown
and the object it points at. The format is the same as
that of linkgit:git-for-each-ref[1]. When unspecified,
defaults to `%(refname:strip=2)`.
<tagname>::
The name of the tag to create, delete, or describe.
The new tag name must pass all checks defined by
linkgit:git-check-ref-format[1]. Some of these checks
may restrict the characters allowed in a tag name.
<commit>::
<object>::
The object that the new tag will refer to, usually a commit.
Defaults to HEAD.
CONFIGURATION
-------------
By default, 'git tag' in sign-with-default mode (-s) will use your
committer identity (of the form `Your Name <your@email.address>`) to
find a key. If you want to use a different default key, you can specify
it in the repository configuration as follows:
-------------------------------------
[user]
signingKey = <gpg-keyid>
-------------------------------------
`pager.tag` is only respected when listing tags, i.e., when `-l` is
used or implied. The default is to use a pager.
See linkgit:git-config[1].
DISCUSSION
----------
On Re-tagging
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What should you do when you tag a wrong commit and you would
want to re-tag?
If you never pushed anything out, just re-tag it. Use "-f" to
replace the old one. And you're done.
But if you have pushed things out (or others could just read
your repository directly), then others will have already seen
the old tag. In that case you can do one of two things:
. The sane thing.
Just admit you screwed up, and use a different name. Others have
already seen one tag-name, and if you keep the same name, you
may be in the situation that two people both have "version X",
but they actually have 'different' "X"'s. So just call it "X.1"
and be done with it.
. The insane thing.
You really want to call the new version "X" too, 'even though'
others have already seen the old one. So just use 'git tag -f'
again, as if you hadn't already published the old one.
However, Git does *not* (and it should not) change tags behind
users back. So if somebody already got the old tag, doing a
'git pull' on your tree shouldn't just make them overwrite the old
one.
If somebody got a release tag from you, you cannot just change
the tag for them by updating your own one. This is a big
security issue, in that people MUST be able to trust their
tag-names. If you really want to do the insane thing, you need
to just fess up to it, and tell people that you messed up. You
can do that by making a very public announcement saying:
------------
Ok, I messed up, and I pushed out an earlier version tagged as X. I
then fixed something, and retagged the *fixed* tree as X again.
If you got the wrong tag, and want the new one, please delete
the old one and fetch the new one by doing:
git tag -d X
git fetch origin tag X
to get my updated tag.
You can test which tag you have by doing
git rev-parse X
which should return 0123456789abcdef.. if you have the new version.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
------------
Does this seem a bit complicated? It *should* be. There is no
way that it would be correct to just "fix" it automatically.
People need to know that their tags might have been changed.
On Automatic following
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are following somebody else's tree, you are most likely
using remote-tracking branches (eg. `refs/remotes/origin/master`).
You usually want the tags from the other end.
On the other hand, if you are fetching because you would want a
one-shot merge from somebody else, you typically do not want to
get tags from there. This happens more often for people near
the toplevel but not limited to them. Mere mortals when pulling
from each other do not necessarily want to automatically get
private anchor point tags from the other person.
Often, "please pull" messages on the mailing list just provide
two pieces of information: a repo URL and a branch name; this
is designed to be easily cut&pasted at the end of a 'git fetch'
command line:
------------
Linus, please pull from
git://git..../proj.git master
to get the following updates...
------------
becomes:
------------
$ git pull git://git..../proj.git master
------------
In such a case, you do not want to automatically follow the other
person's tags.
One important aspect of Git is its distributed nature, which
largely means there is no inherent "upstream" or
"downstream" in the system. On the face of it, the above
example might seem to indicate that the tag namespace is owned
by the upper echelon of people and that tags only flow downwards, but
that is not the case. It only shows that the usage pattern
determines who are interested in whose tags.
A one-shot pull is a sign that a commit history is now crossing
the boundary between one circle of people (e.g. "people who are
primarily interested in the networking part of the kernel") who may
have their own set of tags (e.g. "this is the third release
candidate from the networking group to be proposed for general
consumption with 2.6.21 release") to another circle of people
(e.g. "people who integrate various subsystem improvements").
The latter are usually not interested in the detailed tags used
internally in the former group (that is what "internal" means).
That is why it is desirable not to follow tags automatically in
this case.
It may well be that among networking people, they may want to
exchange the tags internal to their group, but in that workflow
they are most likely tracking each other's progress by
having remote-tracking branches. Again, the heuristic to automatically
follow such tags is a good thing.
On Backdating Tags
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you have imported some changes from another VCS and would like
to add tags for major releases of your work, it is useful to be able
to specify the date to embed inside of the tag object; such data in
the tag object affects, for example, the ordering of tags in the
gitweb interface.
To set the date used in future tag objects, set the environment
variable GIT_COMMITTER_DATE (see the later discussion of possible
values; the most common form is "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM").
For example:
------------
$ GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="2006-10-02 10:31" git tag -s v1.0.1
------------
include::date-formats.txt[]
NOTES
-----
include::ref-reachability-filters.txt[]
SEE ALSO
--------
linkgit:git-check-ref-format[1].
linkgit:git-config[1].
GIT
---
Part of the linkgit:git[1] suite