On 28.08.2010 00:00, Vadim Bendebury wrote:
guys, here is the change for your review:
I have added my review there. The suggested code breaks for me.
It does not deal with the recent addition which retrieves SVN revision number, that part can be easily added, it mostly makes the git version display much more useful.
Ideally we get something like this into the tree.
What exactly was wrong with the patch I posted?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Vadim Bendebury (вб) vbendeb@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:52 PM, David Hendricks dhendrix@google.com wrote:
[+vadim]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:49 PM, David Hendricks dhendrix@google.com wrote:
Looks pretty good so far! For the benefit of everyone who missed the excitement on IRC, there is one major caveat to this patch: Those using a git repository probably have stale SVN metadata, which means the upstream Flashrom SVN information in the
guys, I am joining the party late so to speak, I have a couple of questions:
- why do you need to integrate shell scripts into the Makefile. It is
perfectly valid to put the code in a file in ./util/
- when local git tree (or svn tree to that matter) has modified files
- this should be reflected in the version string, to indicate that the
code was built off modified source tree.
Debatable.
- the git hash on its own is not good enough: you can't tell looking
at two hashes which one is more recent, this is why in case svn information is not available the date should be included. In case the source is built off pristine sources, the date should be the git log date, in case the tree was modified, the date should be the build date.
If svn information is not available at all, the report is totally worthless anyway.
- *anything* isbetter than producing multiple different images with
the same version string
Of course images with the same version string will differ. Or do you really suggest to ship debug builds only, and print the version number of every used header file?
I have a patch which achieves most of that, I'll share it with you in a bit later,
I think we need a few more iterations to get this through review.
Regards, Carl-Daniel