Ulrich Windl wrote:
On 1 Apr 2009 at 10:41, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
Ulrich Windl wrote:
On 30 Mar 2009 at 11:06, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
[...]
3 It's far better to set the version number in the release-process. Usually
this can be done automatically by one invocation of "git describe", just
as git.git does it.
However if you put a version number into every file and THEN commit, it's somewhat
ridiculous (I'll have to learn about "git describe"). But for configuration
management you want to have exactly that (find exactly the file that was shipped
(or used to build)).
We've adopted "3" full out at $dayjob. Our build-machinery gets the version
number from the git tag (releases can only be built from signed tags), and
it updates macros and whatnot used for informing the user which version he
or she is running. This makes a lot more sense both from a bug-reporting
and from a release process view than having generated version-numbers in
So your "release commits" are outside GIT? (see above)
They aren't release commits. Just a script that creates a tarball and an RPM
(in our case).
OK, that's what I did with CVS also, but with "CVS diff" I see the revision
numbers (old and new) for every single file in a patch, while Git just uses "a"
and "b". There I'd still prefer what CVS does.
files. On a side-note; When I told my co-workers I'd like us to switch to
git, two of them asked about autoversioning features. I said there weren't
any and asked them to name a single time when we've actually used them for
anything *at all*. In a team of eight, having been programming for three
years with 12 releases and about 800 bugreports + feature-requests, noone
could mention a single time when the autogenerated version numbers had
actually been used for anything.
Hmm: Were they visible to customers?
Ofcourse they were, but they were rather useless even there, as a customer
could upgrade and the $Id$ tag still wouldn't get updated. It caused a lot
of confusion for our not-so-techsavvy users and customers.
What I don't understand here is: Why wouldn't the $Id$ be updated upon upgrade?
Because it's a manual process?
It MAY not get updated, since $Id$ tags are per-file instead of per-project.
Any sane project will have more than one file, and the file listing the
$Id$ that the end-user sees may not have changed since the last release.
Per-file revision tags are stupid and useless for anything but a one-file
project.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.
--
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
