Re: [Ekiga-devel-list] ekiga.rc

Am Montag, den 20.04.2009, 21:38 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Michael Cronenworth <mike cchtml com> wrote:
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [Ekiga-devel-list] ekiga.rc
> > From: Michael Rickmann <mrickma gwdg de>
> > To: Ekiga development mailing list <ekiga-devel-list gnome org>
> > Date: 04/20/2009 11:54 AM
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, I have seen that. I am still testing. Would something like
> >> #define EKIGA_REVISION "EKIGA_3_2_0-80-g80bf6d3" be acceptable in
> >> revisioin.h? It is based on the output of git describe, the 80th
> >> revision of tag EKIGA_3_2_0 I guess.
> >
> >
> > You cannot do this. Git does not use revision numbers. It uses a commit
> > *hash* for tracking. Don't rely on Git hashes. Define another version number
> > and use that.If the tag points to the commit, then only the tag is shown.
> Its not (at least in fedora) used as a version number, but rather as a
> tracking bit in builds that aren't final releases to allow tracking of
> the exact revision.
> Peter
As to git describe, man git-describe says: "Otherwise, it suffixes the
tag name with the number of additional commits on top of the tagged
object and the abbreviated object name of the most recent commit."
So there you have your counting of revisions.
When I do a git describe this morning it says:
So its the 83th commit to tag EKIGA_3_2_0. 44151ba are the first seven
digits of the 40 digit hash of Eugen's commit yesterday evening which I
need to identify the commit in "git log". I think that git describe
comes closest to the versioning we were used from SVN.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]