On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:44:47PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:00:27 +1000 > Matthew Palmer <mpal...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:18:20PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > > > Why won't you just use `git --describe`? > > > > > It produces nice version numbers of the format > > > > > <last tag>-<number of commits after it>-<start of hash> > > > > > (or just <last tag> when you're packaging a release) > > > > git --describe is, as far as I can tell, useless for the purpose stated at > > the beginning of the thread. > > Did you miss the <number of commits after it> bit? I think that makes it > ideal provided each release is tagged with its version number.
Because tags aren't globally unique. Since you yourself said that tags weren't suitable, in and of themselves, when I proposed it, I can't imagine how a tag plus a commit count is of any use. The addition of a hash doesn't help, for the non-sortable reason I gave. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100917082317.ge3...@hezmatt.org
