On 13 October 2015 at 10:50, Bruno Randolf <b...@einfach.org> wrote: > On 10/12/2015 10:53 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >>> git describe >>> >>> r-35387-g83c5a41 >>> >>> If you prefer, cut the last part and get "r-35387". >>> >>> Looks familiar? Now you even have real linear numbering in each branch, >>> without the gaps you get when committing to different branches in SVN + >>> the unique hash. Need to look up the commit? Use the hash (g83c5a41). >>> >>> Of course "r" is just an example to show the familiarity with SVN >>> revisions, you could choose whatever seems fit, for example at this >>> moment it would make sense to tag the moment when 15.05 was branched off >>> from trunk as "dd", then you'd get "dd-number-hash" in trunk and >>> "15.05-66-g66620f5" in the 15.05 branch (you actually do, just need to >>> use "git describe --tags" because the tag was not created with -a). >> >> That looks quite interesting. The issue I see with that is if somebody >> adds a local commit on top and builds the tree, the number behind 'r' is >> misleading and the hash is useless. > > Right, I see, the ambiguous numbering with local commits may be a weak > point. But then, if you don't find the hash in the OpenWRT git, you also > know that it's not a clean copy of trunk and that's also valuable > information. People should report bugs from clean trunk, not containing > random, unknown, additional commits. >
and then, again, if a user is able to commit something usually that means he is able to understand that reporting his local changes doesn't make sense. Though, I still think that appropriate, meaningful tags will be a better option to just r (which would be just svn legacy). Not sure but probably both options could be used in parallel. Regards, Roman _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
