On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:57:05 +0100 Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Stefan,
could you please split this up? I started to review but I guess the patch will have gone through some revisions before I'm done reading.
Hi,
I had it split up but since pretty much all of it is somehow interdependent I ended up combining it into one patch because it was rather futile. Do you have ideas where/how to split it?
BTW it is work in progress and I have already fixed some bugs available in the staging branch. If we can we may wanna continue the review on gerrit... I need to sort some things out with Patrick first though.
Build of the 0.9.99 release without any changes: flashrom 0.9.99-e4f6643 on Linux 3.13.0-76-generic (x86_64)
Well, that's redundant. Why doesn't it just say 0.9.99? If somebody would forge the tag locally, he could also just override getrevision.sh.
It is redundant in most cases, yes. However, with the hash you can check the revision out even if you don't have the tags for some reason. Also, it brings consistency since we simply always add the hash to the version string. After all, the hash is *the* identifying attribute of a commit in git. And we did include the svn revision number in releases as well. The superfluous nature alone doesn't convince me.