| Message ID | 20170615121756.8831-1-zajec5@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
On 2017-06-15 14:17, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > Counting commits to determine revision number is a wrong idea when there > are branches in a project. This could generate the same revision for > different git commits, e.g.: > > For master branch: > ./scripts/getver.sh bb9d2aa868 > r3438-bb9d2aa868 > > For lede-17.01 branch: > ./scripts/getver.sh 2e206c79cc > r3438-2e206c79cc > > Let's use git's sha1 instead and add amount of local commits on top of > this, e.g.: > ./scripts/getver.sh > c00fbaf670+3 > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> NACK. If you care about correctness, I think we should have some branch info in there instead. The numbers are still useful to get a rough estimate of how old a particular build is. - Felix
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > Counting commits to determine revision number is a wrong idea when there > are branches in a project. This could generate the same revision for > different git commits, e.g.: > > For master branch: > ./scripts/getver.sh bb9d2aa868 > r3438-bb9d2aa868 > > For lede-17.01 branch: > ./scripts/getver.sh 2e206c79cc > r3438-2e206c79cc Yes, this choice has always puzzled me... > Let's use git's sha1 instead and add amount of local commits on top of > this, e.g.: > ./scripts/getver.sh > c00fbaf670+3 Maybe a stupid question, but why not simply use "git describe"? That way you'll get the nice short aliases for tagged releases with no extra fuzz. Some examples: Branch based on v17.01.2 with 2 local commits: bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe v17.01.2-2-g76b6bed119a1 Current 17.01 branch: bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe v17.01.2-1-ga6b5ddfd9b87 The 17.01.0 release branch: bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe v17.01.0 Current master branch: bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe reboot-4409-g19ac87995421 Isn't this exactly what you want? Note the even though you can have many branches with 4409 commits on top of the 'reboot' tag, there is only one containing commit g19ac87995421. So this version scheme is unique. Bjørn
Citeren Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no>: > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: > >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> Counting commits to determine revision number is a wrong idea when there >> are branches in a project. This could generate the same revision for >> different git commits, e.g.: >> >> For master branch: >> ./scripts/getver.sh bb9d2aa868 >> r3438-bb9d2aa868 >> >> For lede-17.01 branch: >> ./scripts/getver.sh 2e206c79cc >> r3438-2e206c79cc > > Yes, this choice has always puzzled me... > > >> Let's use git's sha1 instead and add amount of local commits on top of >> this, e.g.: >> ./scripts/getver.sh >> c00fbaf670+3 > > Maybe a stupid question, but why not simply use "git describe"? That > way you'll get the nice short aliases for tagged releases with no extra > fuzz. > > Some examples: > > Branch based on v17.01.2 with 2 local commits: > > bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe > v17.01.2-2-g76b6bed119a1 > > Current 17.01 branch: > > bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe > v17.01.2-1-ga6b5ddfd9b87 > > > The 17.01.0 release branch: > > bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe > v17.01.0 > > Current master branch: > > bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/src/lede$ git describe > reboot-4409-g19ac87995421 > > > Isn't this exactly what you want? Note the even though you can have > many branches with 4409 commits on top of the 'reboot' tag, there is > only one containing commit g19ac87995421. So this version scheme is > unique. Whatever scheme is used, please use something which continuously increments. I keep local builds for a while and it is very useful to be able to see in a glance if one build is more recent than another one.
diff --git a/scripts/getver.sh b/scripts/getver.sh index 9175f411db..17b3dd64ae 100755 --- a/scripts/getver.sh +++ b/scripts/getver.sh @@ -27,20 +27,18 @@ try_git() { BRANCH="$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)" ORIGIN="$(git rev-parse --verify --symbolic-full-name ${BRANCH}@{u} 2>/dev/null)" [ -n "$ORIGIN" ] || ORIGIN="$(git rev-parse --verify --symbolic-full-name master@{u} 2>/dev/null)" - REV="$(git rev-list ${REBOOT}..$GET_REV | wc -l | awk '{print $1}')" if [ -n "$ORIGIN" ]; then UPSTREAM_BASE="$(git merge-base $GET_REV $ORIGIN)" - UPSTREAM_REV="$(git rev-list ${REBOOT}..$UPSTREAM_BASE | wc -l | awk '{print $1}')" + UPSTREAM_BASE_ABBR="$(git log -n 1 --format="%h" $UPSTREAM_BASE)" + LOCAL_COMMITS="$(git rev-list ${UPSTREAM_BASE}..$GET_REV | wc -l | awk '{print $1}')" else - UPSTREAM_REV=0 + UPSTREAM_BASE_ABBR="unknown" + LOCAL_COMMITS="$(git rev-list $GET_REV | wc -l | awk '{print $1}')" fi + [ $LOCAL_COMMITS -eq 0 ] && LOCAL_COMMITS="" - if [ "$REV" -gt "$UPSTREAM_REV" ]; then - REV="${UPSTREAM_REV}+$((REV - UPSTREAM_REV))" - fi - - REV="${REV:+r$REV-$(git log -n 1 --format="%h" $UPSTREAM_BASE)}" + REV="$UPSTREAM_BASE_ABBR${LOCAL_COMMITS:++$LOCAL_COMMITS}" ;; esac