Re: Suggestion: drop 'g' in git-describe suffix

Santi Béjar wrote:

On 11/2/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Andy Whitcroft escreveu:

quoted

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

quoted

  tag+sha1

to separate the tag and the committish.

Well there is a non-alphabet character in there, a minus (-).  The g
prefix on the sha1 _fragment_ it to indicate that it is in fact a
truncated sha1, not a complete one.

I think it is there to indicate it is a git commit sha1.

quoted

is this policy documented somewhere?  None of the tools understand it.

[lilydev@haring git]$ git describe
v1.4.3.3-g1e1f76e
[lilydev@haring git]$ git show g1e1f76e
fatal: ambiguous argument 'g1e1f76e': unknown revision or path not in
the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions

Use the complete output of describe:
$ git show v1.4.3.3-g1e1f76e

or the abbrev sha1:
$ git show 1e1f76e

quoted

My suggestion is to use

   v1.4.3.3+1e1f76e

My suggestion is to use:

v1.4.3.3-git1e1f76e

to make clear that it is a git revision version.

One problem I see with this scheme (either 'g', 'git' of '+') is that
it does not provide an increasing version number, even for
fast-forwarding commits. Then it is not useful as a package version
number (deb or rpm). I've already seen deb packages with
version+git20061010. One possibility could be to add the number of
commits between the tag and the commit as:

v1.4.3.3-git12g1e1f76e

to provide a weak ordering for fast-forwarding commits. What do you thing?

I think you'll restart the 1.2.3.4 versioning is better 'debate' again!

Surly if things are being pushed into a .deb or .rpm we should be using
a real release version.  We should be tagging that.  If the project is
not providing release number, there is nothing stopping you from tagging
them yourself in your copy of the repository and using your tag.  you
could use like 'unofficial-N' where N increments in the way you want.