On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:48 AM jp charras <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 27/08/2016 à 17:14, Chris Pavlina a écrit : > > Now that we've migrated from bzr, there isn't much reason to keep > > attaching a (now fake) bzr revision number to the version string. > > Additionally, we can choose a sensible default branch name if one isn't > > specified on the cmake line, rather than "product". This patch reformats > > the version strings to: > > > > (2016-08-26 revision 67230ac)-master > > | | | > > | | custom branch name if set. Otherwise, > > | | branch name, "HEAD" if not on a branch, > > | | or "unknown" if no .git present > > | | > > | abbreviated commit hash, or no-git if no .git > > | present > > | > > date of commit, or date of build if no .git present > > I find the bzr revision number useful to easily know the order of > revisions. > the name bzr is now a bit strange, so the version string could be: > > (2016-08-26 rev 1234 git 67230ac)-master > > (users, many times, just give a rev number, no the full version string, so > in a bug or mail, rev > 1234 has meaning, but revision 67230ac has no meaning, at least for me). > > -- > Jean-Pierre CHARRAS > You almost never need the full commit hash for git. That is why the short version is normally shown. Honestly I find it similarly easy to search for a git hash and a bzr revision number, it just takes a tiny bit of adjusting to. Jon
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
