Better testing of tagged tars

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Tuesday 12 February 2013 10:43:37 Ian Monroe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:
> > Would a solution like introducing dedicated versions help here: maybe. It
> > would require each developer working with such issues to track the release
> > team mailing list to get the notification of a respin, the new version
> > number and the matching git hash. Tricky and again with lots of work.
> > Also problematic once the final version is created because the version
> > information must be exactly the same otherwise Dr.Konqui magic doesn't
> > work.
> 
> Wouldn't much of the problem be solved if the git sha was directly
> appended to the version number? It wouldn't even need to be all that
> many digits - like 3 or 4 - since it would just need to differentiate
> between commits around the time of the release. Traceability would be
> for free. You wouldn't be able to tell which tarball of the same
> version but different sha was the newest, but you can't tell that
> currently anyways.
If DrKonqui can handle that (perform proper version matching) it would be in 
general a very good thing to have.

But I don't know whether that can work at all that it really points to the 
right sha given the way how git works. One would need to know the hash of the 
commit being created by inserting the hash into the version information in 
CMakeLists.txt.

--
Martin Gräßlin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20130212/8326e2df/attachment.sig>