I was thinking of, following the flavor of svnversion, 1234? or ~1234, but either way.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on point three. Please do something to the string to make it clear that > svnversion wasn't used. "1234 (svn info)", e.g. > rjrjr > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Freeland Abbott < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry for the lag... >> >> 1. Why'd you specify branch & revision as transient? Not clearly >> wrong, just seems unnecessary. >> 2. You're changing the branch output from my "just the last term" spec >> to "full branch path from repo root," right? That's surely more correctly >> complete, but may make the tag a bit unwieldy. It's got some ripple >> effects >> in other tools we have, if we're changing spec. (I don't feel strongly, >> though I'd originally take the last-term as "almost surely unique" and >> mildly more usable.) >> 3. Making svnversion optional doesn't distress me (and I assume git >> can't offer it), but it does potentially allow people to misrepresent >> builds >> as being rNNN, when they're actually arbitrary local mods from NNN, >> perhaps >> including split-version checkouts, but certainly including local edits. >> Do >> we want the imprecision recorded somehow, if svnversion isn't present? >> (This isn't entirely theoretical; both Ray and Joel have accidentally had >> mixed-version workspaces, though only by branch-info.txt being off-base >> w.r.t. the rest.) >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hey Freeland, >>> I hacked on SvnInfo a bit to do the following things: >>> >>> 1) If .svn/ isn't present but .git/ is, use "git svn info". >>> >>> 2) A more surefire way of figuring out exactly what branch we're on. >>> Note the behavior change for a release branch: whereas before you'd get >>> "1...@4444" you'll now get "releases/1...@4444". To me this seems like an >>> improvement. >>> >>> 3) Make svnserve's success optional; use whatever rev you got from "svn >>> info" if it doesn't run. I don't feel strongly about this bit, just thought >>> it might be okay to be more lenient. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Scott >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
