--On 15 July 2004 09:48 -0700 Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:50:46PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
>> Just noticed that releases report the revision of the branch they were
>> built from, but neither release candidate nor HEAD builds seem to do so.
>>
>> IMHO, they should.
>
> In the case of RC tarballs I suppose we could include this. However,
> our documentation on what we put in that field says we don't. I'm not
> sure if there's a reason for that or not.
>
> However, in HEAD builds or any other out of repository build, it is
> impossible to give a single revision that it is build against. The
> working copy could be a mixed revision working copy. Also in order to
> include this we'd have to update it on every build as someone could
> update a single file. Which means svn_version.h would be updated and
> tons of things depend upon that so you'd end up rebiulding everything.
> Ultimately, it would be worthless because it wouldn't be an accurate
> reflection of what is in the build because either people would defeat it
> or it just wouldn't work. We're far better off leaving it out
> so people don't come to believe it is reliable.
>
> The only time we do that is with tags and if someone builds with a mixed
> working copy of a tag well they're on their own.
Hmm, why not include the whole output from the svnversion . in the top
level? If they are a fool and have a mixed version then at least it will
be obvious in the output. If they are not then it will be a useful
version. Either way it is _obvious_ from that whether it is useful or not,
including whether its modified for instance?
-apw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 16 14:58:58 2004