On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Stephen Haberman <step...@exigencecorp.com>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 google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
