On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Stephen Haberman <[email protected]>wrote:
> Also FWIW, I am not a fan of master's "git describe" looking like > "2.5.1-250-...". That seems misleading, because if we put the 2.5.1-rc0 > tag directly on master's commit B: > > A - B [2.5.1-rc0] - C - D (master) > > And the 2.5.1 branch continues off B: > > A - B [2.5.1-rc0] - E - F [2.5.1] > > Then describe will name commit C as "2.5.1-rc1-1-C", when really in my > mind "2.5.1-rc1 + 1 commit" is commit E. On the 2.5.1 branch. There > would basically be two "2.5.1-rc1 + 1 commit" commits, which, yes, > there is still the sha, but that seems confusing IMO. > This is my instinct too: I'd like to be able to look at a version string and have some intuition about whether it came from a release branch or from master. But that's not a deal breaker for me. If the Git experts working on Gerrit have decided to go with 'ambiguous' descriptions, I'm willing to try out their method; maybe it's not so bad in practice. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
