Re: versioning rant

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:50:32PM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > Grrr....
> >
> > This means that our 0.9 release actually says "rc2" in it, doesn't it?
> >
> > Yup. Just verified.
>
> I'd like to see something that the Perl folks use in their builds. Since
> they use Perforce and get revision numbers and svn has them too, let's put
> the revision number of the build into the executable. This'll be handy for
> debugging purposes when people email us so they can tell us exactly which
> revision they have an issue with. I'd also like to see this in the HTML
> output generated by the SVN server.
>
> This is something cvs cannot do.

It's something that we can't do either :-)

A given executable can be built from a multi-revision working copy. There
isn't a way to say "this is exactly revision 1347". It might have parts from
revision 1204, for example.

Our distributions could certainly insert something that specifies the
revision number, and that a distro was used.

In Apache, the CVS repository (therefore, all developer builds) always say
something like "2.0.33-dev", meaning that it is being developed towards
2.0.33. At release time, the -dev is dropped.

In our terms, we could have a label that says "dev" and then replace that in
the "dist.sh" script with the correct revision number. Thus, if people
report that they are using a "dev" version, we can be suspicious. If they
report a specific revision, then we know it came from a distro, and what
revision it was.

Note that this is somewhat orthogonal to including a state / quality level
in the codebase.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org