git rename (branch/release-tag) risks

What’s the best process to change git release tag name and should branch names match release name?

The best process for changing a Git release name is to create a new tag with the correct name and delete the old one, since tags are permanent pointers to a specific commit. Branch names do not have to match release names, and best practices often use a consistent naming convention instead of direct matches. 

The process for changing a Git release name

Releases are tied to immutable Git tags, which act as permanent markers for specific points in your project’s history. This means a tag cannot be renamed directly. Instead, you must delete the incorrect tag and create a new one. 

• 1. Create the new tag locally. Navigate to the commit associated with the old release tag and create a new tag with the correct name.

git tag <new-tag> <old-tag>

• 2. Delete the old tag locally. This removes the incorrect tag from your local repository.

git tag -d <old-tag>

• 3. Push the new tag to the remote. Push the newly created tag to your remote repository.

git push origin <new-tag>

• 4. Delete the old tag from the remote. Remove the incorrect tag from the remote repository.

git push origin :refs/tags/<old-tag>

• 5. Re-link the release on your hosting platform. 
  If you are using a platform like GitHub or GitLab,
  you will need to go to the Releases section in the UI.
  The old release will likely have an invalid tag.
  Re-associate the release with the new, correct tag. 

Important considerations:

• Communicate with your team: Renaming a tag affects anyone who has cloned the repository. Communicate the change to your team so they can update their local clones and remove the outdated tag.
• Use force push with caution: While git tag -f and git push -f can force an update, this is often discouraged. Deleting and re-creating the tag is the safest method to avoid confusion. 

Should branch names match release names?

For most workflows, branch names should not directly match the release name. Instead, use a clear, standardized naming convention that describes the purpose of the branch, such as release/ or hotfix/

Common Git workflow example

In a standard Gitflow or similar branching strategy, the workflow for a release looks like this:

1. Create a release/ branch: 
   For a new release (e.g., v2.0), you would branch off your main or develop branch with a name like release/2.0.0.
2. Make final fixes: 
   Only bug fixes and final touches are made on this dedicated release branch, which stabilizes the code for the official launch.
3. Create the release and tag: 
   When the code on the release/2.0.0 branch is ready, it is merged into main, and that specific commit is given the tag v2.0.0.
4. Delete the release branch: 
   The release/2.0.0 branch is often deleted after the tag has been created

Advantages of not matching names

• Clarity: 
  A branch name like release/2.0.0 clearly communicates its purpose in the development cycle, while a branch named simply v2.0.0 could be mistaken for the tag itself.
• Flexibility: 
  It separates the temporary development effort (the branch) from the permanent historical marker (the tag). You could end up with several release-candidate tags (e.g., v2.0.0-rc1) from the same release/2.0.0 branch.
• Organization: 
  This approach helps keep your repository clean and easy to navigate.
  By using a consistent prefix like release/, you can more easily find and manage branches related to releases.

What are the risks?

There are significant risks to renaming Git releases and branches, primarily related to breaking workflows and causing confusion for other developers. While technically possible, especially when releases are simply Git tags, it should be approached with extreme caution. 

Risks of renaming Git releases (tags)

Git tags are designed to be permanent references to specific points in a project’s history.
When you rename or replace a tag, you are breaking this fundamental contract.

• Security risks: 
  Relying on mutable tags can create security vulnerabilities. Someone could download an initial release, but if the tag is moved to a new commit, they could be tricked into using a different, possibly compromised, version. Security-conscious processes and package managers rely on tag immutability.
• Trust and integrity: 
  Renaming or changing a tag undermines trust in the versioning system. Users of your library or application, including CI/CD systems, expect a tag like v1.0.0 to always represent the same, specific code. Moving it violates this expectation.
• Broken automation: 
  Build scripts, package managers (like Homebrew, Packagist, or Go), and deployment processes that depend on the old tag name will fail. All automated systems and configuration files that reference the old tag will need to be updated.
• Forced action for users: 
  Any developer who has cloned the repository and fetched the old tag will have a mismatched local history. They will need to manually delete the old tag and fetch the new one to correct their local state.

Risks of renaming Git branches

Branches are more dynamic than tags, but renaming a shared remote branch is still highly disruptive for a team. 

• Broken workflows for collaborators: Anyone who has the old branch checked out locally or has a remote-tracking branch for it will be affected. Their local clone will not automatically update to the new branch name, and their pushes will start to fail.
• Outdated local clones: Teammates will need to manually fetch the changes, reset their upstream tracking, and possibly re-create their local branch from the new remote branch to get back in sync.
• Confusion and cognitive overload: In a fast-moving project, renaming branches can cause significant confusion, especially if the old branch names are not properly cleaned up. It can create an “orphaned” branch that seems active, leading to wasted effort.
• Broken links and integrations: Just like with tags, renaming a branch can break links in documentation, CI/CD configurations, and other third-party integrations that reference the old branch name.

Your proposed process and its risks

The process you’ve outlined for v1, v2, and v3 is technically sound for replacing tags and renaming branches, but it carries all the risks described above.

# This block of code shows the logic for one version.
# The following assumes that `v1` is both the branch name and the tag name.

# git checkout v1
# git tag v0.0.1 v1
# git tag -d v1
# git branch -m v0.0.1
# git push origin :refs/tags/v1
# git push origin v0.0.1

# 1. New Tag (git tag v0.0.1 v1)
*   <em><mark style="background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)" class="has-inline-color has-white-color">**Creates a new tag**</mark></em> `v0.0.1` pointing to the same commit as the old `v1` tag. 
    This is correct for creating a new release.

# 2. Old Tag Deletion (git tag -d v1 and git push origin :refs/tags/v1)
*   **Deletes the old tag** `v1` both locally and on the remote. 
    This is the correct way to remove the old, improperly named tag. 
    The risk is for users who have already fetched the old tag.

# 3. Branch Rename (git branch -m v0.0.1)
*   **Renames the local branch** `v1` to `v0.0.1`. 
    This is where the major branch-related risks begin.

# 4. Push (git push origin v0.0.1)
*   **Pushes the newly named local branch** to the remote. 
    This effectively creates a new remote branch and leaves the old `v1` remote branch orphaned. 
    You would also need to run `git push origin --delete v1` to remove the old remote branch, 
    or do so manually on your hosting platform.

#### Summary of risks for your process:
*   **All users will be disrupted.** 
    Every user who has a local `v1` branch or who fetched the old `v1` tag will have a broken setup.
*   **CI/CD breaks.** 
    Any automated jobs that track the `v1` branch or tag will fail immediately after the rename.
*   **Links will be broken.** 
    Any URLs or documentation referencing `/tree/v1` or `/releases/v1` will need to be updated.
*   **No recovery for existing users.** 
    There is no automated way to fix the issue for your team members. 
    They will need to run specific commands to align their local repo with the new naming scheme.

### Recommended action
If this is an internal project with a small, coordinated team, the risks are manageable with clear communication. If it's a public-facing repository with many users, the risks are more severe and potentially not worth it.

1.  **Communicate clearly:** 
    Before you do anything, inform your team about the upcoming changes 
    and provide them with the commands they will need to run.
2.  **Provide remediation instructions:** 
    Give your team a script or list of commands to run to update their local repositories.
    *   `git fetch --prune origin`
    *   `git remote set-head origin --auto`
    *   `git checkout v0.0.1`
3.  **Update integrations:** 
    Change any automated tools, scripts, or documentation that reference the old branch or tag names.
4.  **Use a standardized naming convention:** 
    Once this is done, establish a clear naming convention (`v0.0.1` for a tag, `release/0.0.1` 
    or `main` for a branch) to avoid this issue in the future.

Maybe the best solution would be to just start using a better naming convention going forward.

You have identified the best and safest approach: transition to a new, better naming convention for all future development while leaving existing branches and releases as they are. This strategy minimizes disruption and avoids the risks associated with rewriting history. 

This is a very common and effective way for teams to improve their version control practices without causing chaos.

Recommended transition plan

1. Define and communicate the new convention
First, decide on a standard for all future branches and tags. A robust convention separates the purpose of a branch (a temporary line of development) from a release tag (a permanent snapshot in time). 

Recommended convention:

Feature/Bugfix Branches: Introduce prefixes like feature/ and bugfix/ for new development. For example, feature/user-login-page. This adds clarity and organization. 

Release Branches: Use a release/ prefix, for example release/0.0.4, for branches where final testing and bug fixing for a release occurs.

Tags: Continue using semantic versioning for tags, like v0.0.4, to mark the final, production-ready release point.

2. Leave existing historical data untouched

The old branches (v1, v2, v3) and their associated tags should be treated as historical artifacts. Do not delete or rename them. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of your project history. 

• Why it’s important: If you need to access or hotfix an old release, its branch and tag will be exactly where you expect it to be. This also preserves the history for any audits, rollbacks, or future reference.

3. Establish the new workflow for the next release

When you are ready for the v0.0.4 release, follow these steps:

• 1. Create a new release/0.0.4 branch. 
  Branch off from your main development branch (e.g., main or develop).

git checkout develop
git checkout -b release/0.0.4

• 2. Make fixes and finalize the release. 
  Perform any last-minute bug fixes and finalize code on this release/0.0.4 branch.
• 3. Create the v0.0.4 tag. 
  When the code is stable and ready, create the new semantic versioning tag.

git tag v0.0.4

• 4. Merge the release branch back. 
  Merge the release/0.0.4 branch back into your main branch.
  You may also want to merge it into your develop branch to ensure any fixes are carried forward.
• 5. Push the new tag to the remote.

git push origin v0.0.4

• 6. Clean up the old branch. 
  You can now delete the release/0.0.4 branch, but the permanent v0.0.4 tag will remain.

git branch -d release/0.0.4
git push origin --delete release/0.0.4

Why this is the best solution

• Zero breakage: 
  By not touching the old branches and tags, you ensure that existing configurations, build pipelines, and automated scripts that rely on them will not fail.
• Clarity and consistency moving forward: 
  New developers and team members will immediately understand the new, improved workflow. The consistent use of tags for releases and dedicated branches for development provides a much cleaner history.
• Easy implementation: 
  This approach doesn’t require any risky commands like forced tag updates or remote branch renames, making it straightforward to implement.