On 28.08.2010 00:00, Vadim Bendebury wrote: > guys, here is the change for your review: > > http://codereview.chromium.org/3265003/show >
I have added my review there. The suggested code breaks for me. > It does not deal with the recent addition which retrieves SVN revision > number, that part can be easily added, it mostly makes the git version > display much more useful. > > Ideally we get something like this into the tree. > What exactly was wrong with the patch I posted? > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Vadim Bendebury (вб) > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:52 PM, David Hendricks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> [+vadim] >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:49 PM, David Hendricks <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Looks pretty good so far! >>>> For the benefit of everyone who missed the excitement on IRC, there is one >>>> major caveat to this patch: Those using a git repository probably have >>>> stale >>>> SVN metadata, which means the upstream Flashrom SVN information in the >>>> >>>> >> guys, I am joining the party late so to speak, I have a couple of questions: >> >> - why do you need to integrate shell scripts into the Makefile. It is >> perfectly valid to put the code in a file in ./util/ >> >> - when local git tree (or svn tree to that matter) has modified files >> - this should be reflected in the version string, to indicate that the >> code was built off modified source tree. >> Debatable. >> - the git hash on its own is not good enough: you can't tell looking >> at two hashes which one is more recent, this is why in case svn >> information is not available the date should be included. In case the >> source is built off pristine sources, the date should be the git log >> date, in case the tree was modified, the date should be the build >> date. >> If svn information is not available at all, the report is totally worthless anyway. >> - *anything* isbetter than producing multiple different images with >> the same version string >> Of course images with the same version string will differ. Or do you really suggest to ship debug builds only, and print the version number of every used header file? >> I have a patch which achieves most of that, I'll share it with you in >> a bit later, >> I think we need a few more iterations to get this through review. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
