On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Which raises another question on my side: Isn't it tedious for you to >> both update DEF_VER *and* tag a version? Wouldn't it probably be less >> error prove (in the sense of keeping DEF_VER and tagged version in >> sync) to remove DEF_VER completely and just die if all ways to derive >> a Git version fail? > > I do not see how it will fly well. Some people want to build out of > tarballs without having any "describe", and DEF_VER and version were > added for that specific purpose.
'version' works, there's no need for DEF_VER. >>> a case where you have your own tag that points at the exact version >>> as I tagged? In such a case, do you have a preference on which tag >> >> No. I always carry patches on top. > > That answer sidesteps the real issue; which one would you prefer if > there are two or more tags? "describe" updated with your patch > would consider both and I think it favours the annotated one over > lightweight. If it matches the preferred order then G-V-N with you > patch would help your workflow; otherwise you would still need a > different way, e.g. making sure what you want it to use is always > used by doing the ">version" thing. That is a red herring. If there's a lightweight tag on top of v1.8.4, and Git chooses to use v1.8.4 as a version name, that's fine because as a matter of fact, that's the real version, since there's no actual changes on top of that. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
