On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay <[email protected]> writes: > > > One can always derive the readable info from the full hash.. > > > > $ git describe 06283fd4323cef45a7147b2226c8e0c084e2 > > v3.4.3-2283-g06283fd > > > > For now I'll keep the full hash here. If it needs to be changed - all > > usages can be changed at the same time.. > > The reason I prefer the "git describe" output is that it provides the > information up-front, so that you can have it in mind while you think > about what might be wrong. For example, if we see v2.2.1-54321-g01dbad, > we know right off that someone must have copied ancient pages somewhere. > The cost of manual translation is not just the time to perform the > mechanical steps, but also the time spent thinking about the problem > without the benefit of that information.
ok changed to 'git describe' [and merged with next] Satish
