On 2008-05-21 15:07:44 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 2008/5/20 Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > Nah, easier to just change the order of the checks (try r2 before
> > r1) as I outlined. I'll whip up a patch.
> [...]
> > If you're exactly on a tagged commit, git-describe will return
> > just the name of that tag, so you don't need to do anything extra.
>
> Now that you mentioned this (I didn't know), is there a need to
> reverse steps r2 and r1? I always build the release from the current
> tag and the version should be clean.
The advantage is that step r1 involves running git-describe, which is
relatively expensive. With the patch I just posted, we only have to
pay that cost when it's really necessary (which is when running stg
directly from a git tree).
> > Both git and we call git-describe with --abbrev=4, which I think
> > means "describe the commit uniquely with as few digits as
> > possible, but no less than four". So we'll get upgraded
> > automatically when it becomes necessary.
>
> OK, I didn't know this either.
I only found out when I wrote the first version patch.
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.treskal.com/kalle
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
