Re: rationale for 'svnversion' (vs 'svn version') ?

Scott Palmer wrote:

> I would love to have 'svn revsion', particularly if it took a URL to a
> repo, I would like to use something like it in our build process. Our

svnversion is already a part of the build-process at my current and
previous workplace.

It is used (as with subversion) to embed enough information into the
produced output to get the source for any binary shipped.

This makes tracking down problems *so* much easier: "x:y" means a
developer we have an unreproducable build, and "M" means someone
forgotten commit changes, both cases have disregarded the warnings the
build system gives about not shipping the resulting binary. This can be
caught by the QA and frowned upon :)

I even embed information from svn status as a text-string into the
binaries, so the QA guy can say: "Developer X, you forgot to commit
files X,Y & Z". It does wonders to confidence in tracking binary/source
relations.

Whether svnversion should stay as separate exe or become svn XXX, I
really don't care... but don't pull it from the binaries that are part
of svn, it's simply too helpful -- and too hard to get right yourself,
switches, mixed revisions and stuff.

-- 
Helge Jensen
   mailto:helge.jensen@slog.dk
   sip:helge.jensen@slog.dk
                -=> Sebastian cover-music: http://ungdomshus.nu <=-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org