On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Oskari Saarenmaa <o...@ohmu.fi> writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> I can see some value in that kind of information, ie. knowing what
> >> patches a binary was built with, but this would only solve the
> >> problem for git checkouts. Even for a git checkout, the binaries
> >> won't be automatically updated unless you run "configure" again,
> >> which makes it pretty unreliable.
> >> -1 from me.
> > I don't think we can solve the problem of finding local changes for all
> > things people may do, but I'd guess it's pretty common to build
> > from a clean local git checkout and with this change at least some
> > of users would get some extra information.
> I agree with Heikki that this is basically useless. Most of my builds are
> from git + uncommitted changes, so telling me what the top commit was has
> no notable value. Even if I always committed before building, the hash
> tags are only decipherable until I discard that branch.
I nearly always remember to set config's "prefix" to some directory name
that describes the uncommitted changes which I am reviewing or testing.
Also including into the directory name the git commit to which those
changes were applied is awkward and easy to forgot to do--the kind of thing
best done by software. (And if I've discarded the branch, that pretty much
tells me what I need to know about the binary built from it--obsolete.)