openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: get Revision from Git (short Hash)
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2019 22:15:23 GMT
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.

>
> >
>
>

-- 
"And in the end, only kindness matters."
   -- Jewel, "Hands"
________________________________________
MzK

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