git version has "-cvs" ?

git version has "-cvs" ?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 179 bytes --]

is there a reason we can't do this ?
are there other places that need updating ?

--- a/gdb/version.in
+++ b/gdb/version.in
@@ -1 +1 @@
-7.10.50.DATE-cvs
+7.10.50.DATE-git

-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: git version has "-cvs" ?

[Joel Brobecker]

> is there a reason we can't do this ?
> are there other places that need updating ?
> 
> --- a/gdb/version.in
> +++ b/gdb/version.in
> @@ -1 +1 @@
> -7.10.50.DATE-cvs
> +7.10.50.DATE-git

FWIW, none that I can think of.

-- 
Joel

Re: git version has "-cvs" ?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 369 bytes --]

On 05 Jan 2016 13:52, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > is there a reason we can't do this ?
> > are there other places that need updating ?
> > 
> > --- a/gdb/version.in
> > +++ b/gdb/version.in
> > @@ -1 +1 @@
> > -7.10.50.DATE-cvs
> > +7.10.50.DATE-git
> 
> FWIW, none that I can think of.

shall i push that now ?  or wait until after the 7.11 branch ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: git version has "-cvs" ?

[Joel Brobecker]

> > FWIW, none that I can think of.
> 
> shall i push that now ?  or wait until after the 7.11 branch ?

I would say, go ahead now. Before or after branching does not make
a difference, I think.

If there were objections to this, I imagine we would have heard them
already; and if we hear some objections afterwards and they are
sufficiently strong to trigger a discussion (which I doubt, for
a patch like this), it'll be trivial to revert while we rediscuss.

-- 
Joel

including git commit in version

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 777 bytes --]

On 08 Jan 2016 12:02, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> I'm currently carrying around a local patch on my development branches to
> add the SHA hash to the version.
> Would this be of use to propose to gdb-patches?

i had that in the back of my mind.  i'd be ok with this sort of thing.

> It's much more useful to be able to tie into an explicit commit reference
> than just a date.

since the date is updated by a script, that can be tied to a commit in
a close range, so it's not that bad.  it's not like the datestamp is
coming from `date` itself.

> Produces:
> > armv7-linux-gdb -v
> > GNU gdb (GDB) 7.10.1.20151205-git-gdb-7.10.1-release-2-g3e96ddbffb05

i think this is only when you're on a branch ?  master doesn't
include all that.  it is verbose, but i'm fine with it.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]