On 09/20/11 - 02:22:01PM, James Laska wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:19 -0500, Steve Loranz wrote:
> The reason I use the git describe output is that it will use the last tag and tell
me how far away I am from it while still allowing me to get back to a specific commit.
That allows for meaningful version information like 0.6.1 to come from the tag instead of
having to manually edit the spec AND tag the source and hope that I remember to do that
each time we want to cut a release.
Thanks for the explanation.
> I'm not entirely clear on the utility of the timestamp portion of the package
name.
I believe it's needed to ensure that a package built from git today, is
*always* newer than a package built from git yesterday. Since the
git-hash isn't sequential, it's possible that RPM will interpret an
older git-hash as a newer/higher %{release}. To that end, I guess
really only the date stamp is needed. However, I do appreciate having
the short git-hash included since that clearly ties back to a point in
git-history.
Yep, exactly. When we originally came up with this scheme years ago, we
started out with githash only, as that is useful information when doing
debugging. We quickly ran into the situation that jlaska describes. So we
added the timestamp so that it would always be newer, and kept the git hash.
I find the timestamp also useful on occasion, since you can pipe that into
date and find out when a package was built (and hence how ancient it is :).
--
Chris Lalancette