From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD761F55B for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:42:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726679AbgFKTmA (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:42:00 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63899 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725824AbgFKTl7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:41:59 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC77775288; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:41:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=zS3WJ+9YF8oyv+71iJ8nnjtLSuw=; b=xIae3i 28HSPcJpVNw16kVHQDUl3+cKNIsj7kG+9bcU6BurAsxkbK51LfbhyxmMS2IYQeCW 3t0z6ZKuXGRYNQyoMa7MzbSk/601nIM1h6ZQgPip6hCNV/UoCXaB88YkJVytCh/J xWvtAf30zTMqq0SiOtItUpc/Fx+HgNqJTzAAY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Vy1bv1mkwG+qNjDP2nTnTg8oGsYgbvYK jEwgmkXEKRYEIV3i7MsougoLPFwkm3qz1ohBpz8xCgZESWcMyKAVDixVGdHuA2ZY 8uJ9ttiDmjuh0v3ZVp86y9x6qUQFgl0eCvUqBki1nXyQO7lv6LPZVBAb1RYyNT8u WSd4p66o0Tw= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DA175287; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:41:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3159975286; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:41:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Denton Liu Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] GIT-VERSION-GEN: update for the post 2.27 cycle References: <4946cf3650b95191455630f85f59e5f93156d0ac.1591883410.git.liu.denton@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:41:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4946cf3650b95191455630f85f59e5f93156d0ac.1591883410.git.liu.denton@gmail.com> (Denton Liu's message of "Thu, 11 Jun 2020 09:50:20 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9C27E318-AC1B-11EA-BAE1-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Denton Liu writes: > Signed-off-by: Denton Liu > --- > 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 ;-)