Re: [lmi] [lmi-commits] master 53e1802 4/8: Use a gainlier name for source directory

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 17:03:06 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> I don't have any tags. I used them in svn, but I'm not sure that's an
GC> svn feature that I really miss.

 Tag implementation in svn is a horrible hack (nobody in their right mind
thinks of tags as a copy of the sources in a specially named directory),
but the concept of tags is very useful and, while I didn't want to bring
this into discussion, I definitely think that they should be used for lmi,
e.g. for all the monthly releases.

 If you do decide to start using them, please notice that understanding git
tags is not as straightforward as it could be, because git uses this word
to describe two rather different things: local, lightweight tags (which are
also useful, but probably not with your workflow) and public, annotated
tag. You want the latter and you probably also will want to sign them with
your GPG key for the usual integrity reasons, so you could just use a
command like the following:

        $ git tag -s -m 'Tag 2017-05 release' v2017.05


GC> >  In fact, I think it would be nice(r) to use this string as part of the
GC> > vendor string too.
GC> 
GC> Yes, that's icky, too, and ought to be improved. I changed one of them 
because
GC> I needed to add a file that would otherwise have been named
GC>   wx-41045df7ea5f93e4c07c1bd846d7127a372705bd.patch
GC> but that was just a temporary expedient. I'm willing to consider a general
GC> improvement in these names. But, returning to the example above, why would 
the
GC> second string be more helpful than the first?
GC>   3.1.0-p1             [first]
GC>   v3.1.0-1337-g33b0a70 [second]

 Note that I said that it should be used as _part_ of the vendor string,
not its entirety -- the "p1" part is important too. So I would just
concatenate both of them together and use "v3.1.0-1337-g33b0a70-p1".

GC> The first means it's wx-3.1.0 with lmi patch 1. Does the second mean...
GC>   wx-3.1.0
GC>   1337 commits after...
GC>   g33b0a70 ...this sha1sum?

 Yes, exactly ("g" is not part of SHA-1 though).

GC> I can see how that could be useful if you build wx frequently and retain
GC> various versions of it, but I build wx rarely and erase old versions. If I
GC> want to know what the sha1sum is, I can look that up in the lmi makefile.

 Vendor tag is embedded in the DLL names, so it provides a very simple
way to check which wx version is used, which is nice IMO. It is also
automatically unique, so different DLLs will never have the same name.

 Regards,
VZ