On 21/09/11 11:41 -0400, James Laska wrote:
>On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 09:26 -0500, Steve Loranz wrote:
>> That is to say that I believe the package names should take the format
>>
>> version-increment.<date>
>>
>> where version is the output of 'git describe' which could be:
>>
>> 0.6.1 for a tagged release
>>
>> or
>>
>> 0.6.1-2-g1eb400d for a version that is two commits past 0.6.1 with a git hash of
1eb400d
>
>I see, that makes sense. I'm understanding from dgoodwin that the tito
>project [1] was designed to assist with generating appropriate version
>and release information (both official releases and interim builds). I
>believe it can help with build submission. My understanding is that it
>is being used in other projects (notably katello) to provide that
>%{version}-%{release} format you suggest above.
>
>Is anyone experienced with using tito to assist with the packaging
>process for each project? Any concerns/objections around investigating
>using tito to standardize the build/tag/versioning process across the
>different projects?
>
I've used tito a bit with some of the
redhat.com internal projects. Candlepin also
uses tito as well.
tito init
Once you are ready to do a build you can run:
tito tag
tito build --rpm --offline (or switch --offline with --test to skip having to tag and
just do a developer build)
It does other cool things like take git commit messages and puts them in the specfile
change log.
>Thanks,
>James
>
>[1]
http://rm-rf.ca/tito
>_______________________________________________
>aeolus-devel mailing list
>aeolus-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/aeolus-devel
_______________________________________________
aeolus-devel mailing list
aeolus-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/aeolus-devel