On 11 March 2014 21:06, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Graham Bloice > <graham.blo...@trihedral.com> wrote: > > On 11 March 2014 20:50, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Graham Bloice > >> <graham.blo...@trihedral.com> wrote: > >> > On 11 March 2014 20:35, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Roland Knall <rkn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > Git commit ids differ > >> >> > between different people (each clone may create their one) > >> >> > >> >> Not technically true. If I make a commit with SHA x, push it, and it > >> >> gets submitted, then it is true that the final SHA in master will be > y > >> >> != x. However, the next time I pull then I will get SHA y as well. > >> >> They x and y technically reference different commits, since y > contains > >> >> additional information about who reviewed it, when it was submitted > >> >> from Gerrit, etc. > >> >> > >> > > >> > But aren't we talking about users, rather than devs? Users will > either > >> > build from a clone from the main repo, or use an automated build, thus > >> > their > >> > reference point will be the Gerrit | master SHA whichever is the most > >> > appropriate name for it. > >> > > >> > In any case I don't think this fulfils the initial question. > Previously > >> > we > >> > could say to users that an issue was fixed in svn r nnnn and they > would > >> > "know" that any rev later than that was good. I don't understand how > >> > they > >> > can "know" that with a SHA of the latest master commit | merge. > >> > >> SHAs aren't ordered like SVN revisions are (so given two arbitrary > >> SHAs and nothing else I can't determine which came first) but they do > >> still have an ordering in the repository. > >> > >> Regardless, we can say: fixed in commit SHA. They can pull, and if > >> "git show SHA" shows the revision then they've got it. Otherwise they > >> don't. > >> > > > > That doesn't help "users" who only install, not build as their copy of > > Wireshark doesn't have a list of SHA (or does it?). > > > > They only way I can think of resolving that is to refer to dates as they > are > > time-ordered (I hope). > > Time still works; if it was submitted to master at noon on Monday then > presumably any automated build from after that point will include the > relevant change. > > Alternatively, the automated build files have the name format: > Wireshark-$Platform-$Tag-$CommitsSinceTag-g$SHA.exe (e.g. > Wireshark-win32-1.11.3-1925-g0f73f79.exe) > > So if you know the change was in SHA x (and the current latest tag is > y), you can run "git rev-list y..x --count" and it will give you the > $CommitsSinceTag value which is strictly increasing like an SVN > revision number. > > I think you're still missing the point. Users who install don't have git, all they have is the "About" box. The information there "should" be enough to allow them to locate a bug on Bugzilla and determine if their version has been "fixed".
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
