Re: [PATCH] GIT-VERSION-GEN: update for the post 2.27 cycle

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2020, 19:41 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq8sgtjsor.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <4946cf3650b95191455630f85f59e5f93156d0ac.1591883410.git.liu.denton@gmail.com>

Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
> ---
>  GIT-VERSION-GEN | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/GIT-VERSION-GEN b/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> index 06a5333ee6..7b0cfeb92e 100755
> --- a/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> +++ b/GIT-VERSION-GEN
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  #!/bin/sh
>  
>  GVF=GIT-VERSION-FILE
> -DEF_VER=v2.27.0
> +DEF_VER=v2.27.GIT

I have been thinking about stopping this transition from ".0" to ".GIT" and left it at ".0" deliberately.

 - The target to create a tarball ("make dist") places the "version"
   file that overrides whatever value is set here, so those who
   build from a tarball will not care what the value described here
   is.

 - Those who build from a repository would use "git describe".

 - In addition, I do not create tarballs and upload to public places
   for a random version with .GIT suffix---I only do so for -rcX and
   the releases.  If anybody else is doing so with "make dist",
   there would be the "version" file included in the tarball,
   recording what is obtained from "git describe HEAD".

So there is no strong reason to care what this value is, and that was why I was experimenting with the idea of leaving it at ".0", in the hope of hearing from people who do want to see ".GIT" why they want it.

Unfortunately, your patch does not say why, either, so it hasn't quite helped yet ;-)