> We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as
> *only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human
> convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier.
That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert
"> it is less reliable and a
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Timesstamps are _not_ a valid reference to a source tree or order in DSCM.(*)
> Never. Not even on Sunday in moonlight.
>
> The only valid reference is the commit-id. IMHO this should really end the
> discussion right here.
>
+1
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:04:36AM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> So, really, rather than "time at which the tinderbox pulled", I argue
>> that "recorded commit time of the HEAD node" is a better identifier to
>> put in tar
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> So, really, rather than "time at which the tinderbox pulled", I argue
> that "recorded commit time of the HEAD node" is a better identifier to
> put in tarball names, about boxes, etc. It is really (within a
> branch) a prop
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:12PM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>>> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
>> :) Thank you, then :)
>> Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
>> Central repository
> sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and
> bear in mind timezone :-))
Ah, yes! You were talking about the fix pushes. With your script? :)
> for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since
> otherwise you would not have found the file to start with.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
>
> :) Thank you, then :)
> Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
> Central repository before time X are included in the source that is
> pulled after time X..
> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
:) Thank you, then :)
Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
Central repository before time X are included in the source that is
pulled after time X... I think?
>> And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info s
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:
> Hi Norbert
>
>> the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not
>> keep track of it.
>
> I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to
> provide a log file for each build
> E.g.
> http://dev-builds
Hi Norbert
> the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not
> keep track of it.
I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to
provide a log file for each build
E.g.
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/lib
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>> But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
>> their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
>> outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
>> feature branches and merges...
> But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
> their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
> outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
> feature branches and merges...
Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was "the time a change
> I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central
> repository by a developer
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
Hi Michael
>> There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the
>> master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't
>> include that fix?
>
> Yes - you can test either on master or a libreoffice-3-4 build (RC1
> will be coming next week or so I think).
Hi Tor, all
Thank you for all the replies
> Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version
> control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I
> understand it.
Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily
builds from the central repos
Hi Pedro,
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 10:05 +, Pedro Lino wrote:
> > Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both
> > upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5.
...
> There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the
> master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it
> I'm new to this QA system, but wouldn't it be useful to know when
> (date/time) this was added?
Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version
control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I
understand it.
Sure, in our case there are "central" repositor
17 matches
Mail list logo
