[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][PATCH] version.sh: Include annotated tag in version string

[Alexander Strasser]

On 2013-11-29 19:06 +0100, Alexander Strasser wrote:
> On 2013-11-29 08:57 -0800, Timothy Gu wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Alexander Strasser <eclipse7 at gmx.net> wrote:
> > > Make it easier to loosely relate e.g. snapshot builds to releases.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Strasser <eclipse7 at gmx.net>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >   We have come across a complaint about the generated versions
> > > identifier strings of random builds being not expressive enough.
> > >
> > >   Please test to see the result and voice your opinion.
> > >
> > >  version.sh | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/version.sh b/version.sh
> > > index 8d084c2..ca55317 100755
> > > --- a/version.sh
> > > +++ b/version.sh
> > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> > >  # check for git short hash
> > >  if ! test "$revision"; then
> > >      revision=$(cd "$1" && git describe --tags --match N 2> /dev/null)
> > > +    revision=${revision}-$(cd "$1" && git describe | cut -d- -f1 2> /dev/null)
> > 
> > I suggest using the RELEASE file as sometimes bad things happen tags
> > are not on master (e.g. n2.1).
> 
>   Dunno. I can switch to the RELEASE file if that is considered more
> reliable. But as you say bad things happen and if could be out of date.

  More opinions? Anyone against the patch in general?

  Regarding the tag name vs. RELEASE file content, I mildly tend
to prefer the tag. It is automatically close to the truth, though
not always closer.

> [...]

  Alexander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20131216/d367d109/attachment.asc>