Fwd: build # in manifests of our jars

Joseph Marques jmarques at redhat.com
Tue Feb 2 16:48:55 UTC 2010


On 02/02/2010 11:39 AM, Jason Dobies wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Forwarding to rhq-devel
>
> - -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: build # in manifests of our jars
> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:25:24 -0500
> From: Ian Springer<ian.springer at redhat.com>
> Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
>
> As some of you may know, a Build-Number attribute is written in the
> manifest of all of our jars. This build # can be found in the GUI by
> selecting the Help>About menu item or from the Agent by typing the
> 'version' prompt command. Traditionally, the build # is used most by QE
> to quickly ascertain what version of the source their build was built from.
>
> In our SVN days, the SVN revision was used as the build #, which worked
> nicely, since SVN revisions are guaranteed to be sequential over time.
> For example, if I knew RHQ 1.2 was SVN r4000 and RHQ 1.3 was SVN r5000,
> and my local build had build # 4500, then I know I'm working with a
> build from somewhere in between 1.2 and 1.3.
>
> Since we switched to git, the Build-Number attribute is always 0. This
> is because the buildnumber plugin we were using only supported SVN. I've
> updated the linux-config branch to start using the abbreviated git
> last-commit SHA-1 hash (e.g. 7e45a62) as the build #. This is useful but
> it lacks the quality of being sequential over time like SVN revisions.
> To compensate for this, I've also made sure all our jars have a
> Build-Time header which contains a human-readable date+time string. Does
> this work for people, particularly QE, or would people prefer the build
> # to be a sequential integer based on the current time (e.g.
> year.dayOfYear.secondOfDay or seconds-since-epoch)? Or do people prefer
> that both are provided, e.g.:
>
> Build-Number: 10-33-23012
>    
Why not "month/day/year time"?


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list