openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: get Revision from Git (short Hash)
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:58:30 GMT
That's exactly what I did ;)

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 8:52 AM, Mechtilde <ooo@mechtilde.de> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> we should commit to trunk and if that code should also be in 42x or 417
> we can cherry- pick the commit.
> 
> regards
> 
> Mechtilde
> 
> Am 15.08.19 um 14:02 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Anyone have issues if we also commit to the 42X and 417 branches?
>> 
>>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 1:03 AM, Peter Kovacs <petko@Apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I pushed the change to gitbox trunk.
>>> 
>>> On 15.08.19 00:15, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:07 PM Matthias Seidel <matthias.seidel@hamburg.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Kay,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 15.08.19 um 00:02 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:24 PM Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Am 14.08.19 um 22:02 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> We already have the build id, the build
>>>>>>>>>> date and now the git hash (which is a unique link
to the last commit
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> was based on)
>>>>>>>>>> This is how we did it with SVN, why should we change
it?
>>>>>>>>> Because we are dropping information. The SVN revisions
are always
>>>>>>> increasing, and thus (independent on the build date, which can
be at any
>>>>>>> moment) I can compare two builds and retain information on which
came
>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>> With git of course this doesn't hold, i.e., you cannot
say which
>>>>> commit
>>>>>>> came earlier between abcd1234 and 5678abcd. So I see some added
value
>>>>> if we
>>>>>>> enrich it this way.
>>>>>>>> Is that needed though? I had thought the basic reason for
having the
>>>>> SVN
>>>>>>> ID is that the end-user knows, for sure, which SVN revision their
app
>>>>> was
>>>>>>> built from.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> it's unrealistic that the commit was done, e.g., today but the
build
>>>>>>> weeks later. So, Git hash and build date is not done at the exact
same
>>>>>>> date and time. But nearly. And here it think it's sufficiant.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But when we decide to prefix the hash with a date value it's
OK for me,
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think the date and hash should be displayed in the "build information"
>>>>>> screen as the revision information was previously. In Jim's sample
>>>>> display,
>>>>>> although the date is displayed, there is no indication of actual
>>>>> "revision"
>>>>>> (hash).
>>>>> This is simply because the code we are discussing about is still not
>>>>> committed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I applied Peters patch and it looks like this:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tkal1y9b09vrhse/VirtualBox_Windows%2010%20AOO-Build_14_08_2019_16_14_33.png?dl=0
>>>>> 
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>> 
>>>> OK. Good.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
<mailto:dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <mailto:dev-help@openoffice.apache.org>
<mailto:dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <mailto:dev-help@openoffice.apache.org>>
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Mechtilde Stehmann
> ## Apache OpenOffice
> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
> ## Debian Developer
> ## PGP encryption welcome
> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message