On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 14:22 -0400, 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.
Oops, sent before I finished typing. I initially thought `git describe`
was providing the hash for the current commit on HEAD. So thanks for
explaining. I was initially expecting a git-built package to include
the git-hash for the newest commit. I believe you can get this
using ...
$ git rev-parse --short HEAD
I'm not sure which approach is correct/best. They both work, but do
different things.
> 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.
Thanks,
James