On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 06:23:17PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:44:47PM +0100, Tony Houghton wrote:
> > 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.
Tags are unique in all even marginally sane projects. They may at most be
limited to a certain group of people -- usually, upstream won't have your
tags but you will have theirs.
The reasons new tags are unsuitable are:
* upstream or people pulling from upstream won't have them, so the tags
would be meaningless
* he is looking for versioning that works in an automated way. There's
no reason to add tags that have no other use than attaching them to
a single build. In general, "tag" means "release", the --describe thing
is there to help with versioning between releases.
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
--
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/20100917124421.ga27...@angband.pl
