Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> writes:
> Which raises another question on my side: Isn't it tedious for you to
> both update DEF_VER *and* tag a version? Wouldn't it probably be less
> error prove (in the sense of keeping DEF_VER and tagged version in
> sync) to remove DEF_VER completely and just die if all ways to derive
> a Git version fail?
I do not see how it will fly well. Some people want to build out of
tarballs without having any "describe", and DEF_VER and version were
added for that specific purpose.
>> a case where you have your own tag that points at the exact version
>> as I tagged? In such a case, do you have a preference on which tag
> No. I always carry patches on top.
That answer sidesteps the real issue; which one would you prefer if
there are two or more tags? "describe" updated with your patch
would consider both and I think it favours the annotated one over
lightweight. If it matches the preferred order then G-V-N with you
patch would help your workflow; otherwise you would still need a
different way, e.g. making sure what you want it to use is always
used by doing the ">version" thing.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html