Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com> writes: > From: Rafał Miłecki <ra...@milecki.pl> > > Counting commits to determine revision number is a wrong idea when there > are branches in a project. This could generate the same revision for > different git commits, e.g.: > > For master branch: > ./scripts/getver.sh bb9d2aa868 > r3438-bb9d2aa868 > > For lede-17.01 branch: > ./scripts/getver.sh 2e206c79cc > r3438-2e206c79cc
Yes, this choice has always puzzled me... > Let's use git's sha1 instead and add amount of local commits on top of > this, e.g.: > ./scripts/getver.sh > c00fbaf670+3 Maybe a stupid question, but why not simply use "git describe"? That way you'll get the nice short aliases for tagged releases with no extra fuzz. Some examples: Branch based on v17.01.2 with 2 local commits: bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe v17.01.2-2-g76b6bed119a1 Current 17.01 branch: bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe v17.01.2-1-ga6b5ddfd9b87 The 17.01.0 release branch: bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe v17.01.0 Current master branch: bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe reboot-4409-g19ac87995421 Isn't this exactly what you want? Note the even though you can have many branches with 4409 commits on top of the 'reboot' tag, there is only one containing commit g19ac87995421. So this version scheme is unique. Bjørn _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
