[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2479) Change version string of development versions

[Paul Zastoupil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 05:58:11PM +0100, Raimar Falke wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 05:25:37PM +0100, Reinier Post wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 08:10:17AM -0800, Raimar Falke via RT wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:42:54PM -0800, Jason Short via RT wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [rfalke - Tue Dec  3 08:01:57 2002]:
> > > > 
> > > > > Development version should use a string of the format "CVS <date>"
> > > > > where <date> is in ISO date like 2002-12-03 instead of the current
> > > > > "1.14.1-devel". The date should be the build date.
> > 
> > This has a serious problem: a date doesn't identify the contents of
> > the repository.  Better use a timestamp in seconds.
> > 
> > A less serious problem: I don't like the format chosen.
> > Software versions should be numbers separated by dots so as to be be
> > comparable numerically.  So I'd rather see 1.14.1.20021203 (and
> > a much longer number to identify a particular second of the day
> > is even better).
> >  
> > > Another alternative would be to have a file which is committed
> > > after/with every normal commit. This file contains something like:
> > > 
> > > #define MASTER_REVISION="$Id 1.45$"
> > > 
> > > and at runtime we build a version string ("1.14.1-45" for example)
> > > from this.
> > > 
> > > Reinier: is this possible? How much work required?
> > 
> > It is simple - so simple that I think we can actually rely on its
> > correct operation.  But I'm not going to publish the details on RT.
> 
> > This is a better as it allows shorter version numbers.  Its version
> > number would always be x.y where y is autoincremented by every commit.
> > And x can be kept identical to the Freeciv patch version number.
> > That way a full version can be generated out of it (1.14.1.3766)
> > that uniquely identifies the contents of the code base.  That would
> > be very useful.
> 
> The revision of the master file should be "1.3766". We can build the
> correct one "1.14.1.3766" based on this.

Wouldn't this be for S_1.14

Isn't HEAD pre 1.15?

> 
> > The only technical question is whether multi-file commits should be
> > treated as a single one.  (We have looked at this before but I'm not
> > sure what the best answer is.  Some clients produce sequences of
> > commits on individual files but with the same log message that lists
> > all of them.)
> 
> Doesn't matter as long as it increases.
> 
>       Raimar
> 
> -- 
>  email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  "The BeOS takes the best features from the major operating systems. 
>   It's got the power and flexibility of Unix, the interface and ease 
>   of use of the MacOS, and Minesweeper from Windows."
> 

-- 
Paul Zastoupil