Re: [PATCH] GIT-VERSION-GEN: update for the post 2.27 cycle

[Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>]

Hi Junio,

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:41:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  GIT-VERSION-GEN | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/GIT-VERSION-GEN b/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> > index 06a5333ee6..7b0cfeb92e 100755
> > --- a/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> > +++ b/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> >  #!/bin/sh
> >  
> >  GVF=GIT-VERSION-FILE
> > -DEF_VER=v2.27.0
> > +DEF_VER=v2.27.GIT
> 
> I have been thinking about stopping this transition from ".0" to
> ".GIT" and left it at ".0" deliberately.
> 
>  - The target to create a tarball ("make dist") places the "version"
>    file that overrides whatever value is set here, so those who
>    build from a tarball will not care what the value described here
>    is.
> 
>  - Those who build from a repository would use "git describe".
> 
>  - In addition, I do not create tarballs and upload to public places
>    for a random version with .GIT suffix---I only do so for -rcX and
>    the releases.  If anybody else is doing so with "make dist",
>    there would be the "version" file included in the tarball,
>    recording what is obtained from "git describe HEAD".
> 
> So there is no strong reason to care what this value is, and that
> was why I was experimenting with the idea of leaving it at ".0",
> in the hope of hearing from people who do want to see ".GIT" why
> they want it.

Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense.

> Unfortunately, your patch does not say why, either, so it hasn't
> quite helped yet ;-)

I tried looking on the list but I didn't find any mention about this
experiment so I assumed that you unintentionally forgot to update the
version. Good to know that it was done deliberately :)

-Denton