On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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.
'version' works, there's no need for DEF_VER.
>>> 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.
That is a red herring.
If there's a lightweight tag on top of v1.8.4, and Git chooses to use
v1.8.4 as a version name, that's fine because as a matter of fact,
that's the real version, since there's no actual changes on top of
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