On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 01:30:19PM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > We have that today. The tarballs are distributed such that you build them
> > and get "0.16.1 (r4276)" as the long version name. But if you get a copy of
> > Subversion from source control, then it will be "0.16.1 (dev build)".
> >
> > I like the + idea, and can certainly arrange that.
> >
> > The one thing that we can't do for a dev build is have "the" revision number
> > appear in the executable. As has been said many times before, when you
> > build, you could have a mixed-revision working copy, so there is no single
> > revision number to insert.
>
> We've also said that most of the svn developers don't use mixed rev
> working copy, probably because most people have a single commit ready
> to go into the tree, run make check and then do the commit.
>
> Also, if there were mixed rev copies, then a revision range, or just
> the different revisions in the tree, could be printed, which would
> imply a more complicated build.
>
I'm in favour of have a revnum in the version, but I don't really like the
idea of the build system crawling my entire wc and reading all of the entries
files to see what revisions of files I have.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Fri Jan 10 22:33:56 2003