On Tuesday November 29 2016 14:59:09 Rainer Müller wrote:
>In the past, we often just checked for new features by testing whether
>the corresponding option or proc exists.
>
>if {[info exists ...]} {
Did I miss something? Checking for procedures is done with {[info procs foo] ne
""} nowadays, no?
> > What would you think of a version number of the form
> > 2.3.99-YYYYMMDD-shorthash, or 2.3.99-unixtime-shorthash?
> Probably should use committer date (%cd) instead of author date (%ad).
> The latter is not always monotonically increasing, for example when pull
> requests were rebased onto master in a different order.
If with shorthash you mean the 7 (or so) first characters from the full hash,
then that one isn't monotonically increasing either.
I've tried this kind of approach with Linux packages in my Ubuntu PPAs. Doesn't
work; more often than not dch will tell you that the new shorthash isn't newer
than the old shorthash.
If you want to use this kind of scheme linking it to a specific commit without
using `git describe` you could do x.y.99-[YY]YYMMDDhhmm[ss] . That's not longer
than adding the shorthash, and chances that multiple commits are made in a
single second (or even minute) are relatively slim (I hope).
R.
