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

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

[Denton Liu]

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
 
 LF='
 '
-- 
2.27.0.132.g321788e831

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

[Junio C Hamano]

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.

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

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

[Denton Liu]

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

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

[Junio C Hamano]

Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:

> 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 :)

Well having said all that, I do not have a strong reason not to
update it.  Perhaps when the next batch of topics graduates and
cause the release notes to be updated, I'll update it as well.

Thanks.