Re: [PATCH] doc: set actual revdate for manpages

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 14, 2023, 16:20 UTC
Message-ID: <64397d3d67d21_5e3ce294a6@chronos.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq5y9yv601.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 28 quoted lines

> > diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
> > index 2ccc3a9bc9..307634a94f 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/Makefile
> > +++ b/Documentation/Makefile
> > @@ -144,8 +144,6 @@ man5dir = $(mandir)/man5
> >  man7dir = $(mandir)/man7
> >  # DESTDIR =
> >  
> > -GIT_DATE := $(shell git show --quiet --pretty='%as')
> > -
> >  ASCIIDOC = asciidoc
> >  ASCIIDOC_EXTRA =
> >  ASCIIDOC_HTML = xhtml11
> > diff --git a/GIT-VERSION-GEN b/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> > index 9a1111af9b..14903bd261 100755
> > --- a/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> > +++ b/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> > @@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ LF='
> >  # then try git-describe, then default.
> >  if test -f version
> >  then
> > -	VN=$(cat version) || VN="$DEF_VER"
> > +	VN=$(cut -d" " -f1 version) || VN="$DEF_VER"
> > +	DN=$(cut -d" " -f2 version) || DN=""
> 
> Are we sure historical GIT_VERSION strings never had a SP in it?
> I would be very surprised if we did, but the correctness of the
> approach depends on that assumption.

Why would that matter?

Supposing a hypothetical tarball with a version '0.99 foo', it would have a corresponding GIT-VERSION-GEN (which didn't check for such file until 1.1.1), and it would know how to parse it.

In other words: all three are tied together: the 'version' file, the GIT-VERSION-GEN script, and the tarball that has them both.

-- 
Felipe Contreras