[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [coreutils] Re: new branch in gnulib: coreutils-8.9

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [coreutils] Re: new branch in gnulib: coreutils-8.9
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:51:00 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.7

On 01/06/2011 02:44 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> gnulib-commit-check:
>>      git submodule foreach test '$$(git rev-parse origin)' \
>>        = '"$$(git merge-base --independent origin $$sha1)"'
> Thanks again for the fine test.
> It passed my tests, so I propose this in your name:
>>From 8ba2dc9163f753c4953e8686f2b611d4e2a3ae84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:35:18 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] add pre-release check to ensure submodule commits 
> are public

Yes, feel free to push that in my name to gnulib.

> +submodule-checks = no-submodule-changes public-submodule-commit

If someone complains about these two tests being git-centric, a solution
for a project using with a different VCS would be to make
submodule-checks defined via ?=, so that it can be overridden in
to an empty macro to skip git submodule consistency checks.  But I'm
okay using = instead of ?= and waiting until someone requests that extra
flexibility, if you don't want to change it now.

> +# Ensure that each sub-module commit we're using is public.
> +# Without this, it is too easy to tag and release code that
> +# cannot be built from a fresh clone.
> +.PHONY: public-submodule-commit
> +public-submodule-commit:

And public-submodule-commit is definitely a better name than

Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]