On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, 09:08 Jan Lahoda, <[email protected]> wrote: > Because for non-release builds, it would be hard/impossible to find what > sources were used to build the given module - it would even be misleading. > And while that would typically be the "dev community", if the IDE log > and/or About/Help are not identifying the sources, we will need to put that > information manually into every bugreport. >
Ah, yes! Thinking about this too much from a technical module interaction point of view, rather than the human one. Did have to check this multiple times with recent beta reports, although other changes mean the beta versions should be marked in the version next time around. My hope is that, when changing the manifest attributes (and/or making the > build reproducible), we could improve this information to actually allow to > identify the original sources used to produce the binary. > OK, sounds like getting git hash into the sources for module build version has to be what to aim at for NB 11.2 then. We could still consider whether it should be used for impl version later, but changing that wouldn't get around the need to have the git hash in the build (which is what I was hoping for). Thanks and best wishes, Neil >
