On Tuesday November 29 2016 03:15:03 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> Then you have your answer in fact. When you bump the version in that script >> you can use git-release or equivalent to create a 2.4.99 tag, and from there >> on `git describe` would identify master as 2.4.99-<counter>-<shorthash> . >> That'd be almost exactly what I'd like to see (though later rather than >> sooner). > >We don't want a x.x.99 tag. It wouldn't mean anything. x.x.99 means master. It >doesn't mean any specific state of master.
I don't follow, if x.x.99 means master and a file in master returns that string, why not also add the tag to the git data? It's the same information, but more easily accessible with certain tools (and the macports_version script could simply return the value obtained from git). Also, if x.x.99 doesn't mean "any specific state", why does it change with major releases? That's not me arguing, I really don't understand, all the more since there is already a tag that implies a "specific state of master" that seems even more inappropriate than an x.x.99 tag could possible be. >No, I would not consider adding such tags. Sorry, I meant to use the plural form of "you" ;) R
