On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:18:00 -0600
"Matthew D. Fuller" wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:45:01AM +0200 I heard the voice of
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu, and lo! it spake thus:
> >
> > Since you have the date, you can easily get the git magic string.
>
> Not necessarily true at all, in VCS's that don't
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:45:01AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Ion-Mihai Tetcu, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Since you have the date, you can easily get the git magic string.
Not necessarily true at all, in VCS's that don't limit to single-line
history. Consider the case where I'm working on a feat
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:48:56 -0600, Max Brazhnikov
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:01:37 +0300, Anonymous wrote:
Ion-Mihai Tetcu writes:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:32:52 +0300
>
> Anonymous wrote:
>> Would it be okay if I use commit hash in PORTVERSION and constantly
>> bump PORTEPOCH on each
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 15:01 +0300, Anonymous wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu writes:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:32:52 +0300
> > Anonymous wrote:
> >
> >> Would it be okay if I use commit hash in PORTVERSION and constantly
> >> bump PORTEPOCH on each update? Are there any such precedents?
> >>
> >> %
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:01:37 +0300, Anonymous wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu writes:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:32:52 +0300
> >
> > Anonymous wrote:
> >> Would it be okay if I use commit hash in PORTVERSION and constantly
> >> bump PORTEPOCH on each update? Are there any such precedents?
> >>
> >> %%%
Ion-Mihai Tetcu writes:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:32:52 +0300
> Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Would it be okay if I use commit hash in PORTVERSION and constantly
>> bump PORTEPOCH on each update? Are there any such precedents?
>>
>> %%%
>> PORTVERSION=0.0.10${SNAPSUFFIX}
>> PORTEPOCH= 1
>>
>>
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:32:52 +0300
Anonymous wrote:
> Would it be okay if I use commit hash in PORTVERSION and constantly
> bump PORTEPOCH on each update? Are there any such precedents?
>
> %%%
> PORTVERSION=0.0.10${SNAPSUFFIX}
> PORTEPOCH= 1
>
> SNAPSUFFIX= .${SNAPTYPE}.${SNAPREV}
