threads / announce / 1919

[ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

Subject: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

## tl;dr

9 messages between Sep 23, 2005 and Sep 24, 2005.

replies: 8people: 5as markdown or json

Junio C Hamano· Sep 23, 2005, 06:18 UTC · lore

GIT 0.99.7b

Contains the following post-0.99.7a fixes:

 - Commit walker performance fix, mostly during walking commits
   in a downloaded packfile, thanks to Sergey Vlasov.

 - Squelch unnecessarily alarming error message from fetch and
   clone over rsync transport, when remote repository does not
   borrow anything from other repositories.

   I've seen enough people got annoyed/worried/alarmed after
   seeing this one on both git and linux-kernel list.

 - Documentation was not rebuilt before installation, noticed by
   Randal L Schwartz.

 - Fetching of objects over http transport got a bit safer.

Tarballs, RPMs and Debs are available at

	http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/

Or, if you use git already:

	{http,rsync}://kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

walt· Sep 23, 2005, 13:11 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> GIT 0.99.7b

[...]

> Or, if you use git already:
> 
> 	{http,rsync}://kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

I did it that way and now I see this:

$git --version git version 0.99.7

This is a bit confusing. Did I upgrade or downgrade? Maybe the version string should contain the same kind of hexadecimal string that Linus is appending to his kernel version?

H. Peter Anvin· Sep 23, 2005, 19:44 UTC · re: walt · lore

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

walt wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>> GIT 0.99.7b
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Or, if you use git already:
>>
>>     {http,rsync}://kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
> 
> 
> I did it that way and now I see this:
> 
> $git --version
> git version 0.99.7
> 
> This is a bit confusing.  Did I upgrade or downgrade?
> Maybe the version string should contain the same kind
> of hexadecimal string that Linus is appending to his
> kernel version?
>

Or just call it 0.99.7.1 and .2 or 0.99.8 and .9.

	-hpa

Junio C Hamano· Sep 23, 2005, 20:46 UTC · re: walt · lore

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

walt <wa1ter@myrealbox.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> GIT 0.99.7b
> [...]
>> Or, if you use git already:
>> 	{http,rsync}://kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
>
> I did it that way and now I see this:

If you fetched v0.99.7b tag and built it, hopefully it should say 0.99.7b otherwise you found a big bug.

If you pulled from "master" branch, then --version would still say 0.99.7; I agree it is confusing. On the other hand, I do not think we would want to increment the version string with every little changes, so...

Joel Becker· Sep 23, 2005, 20:52 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 01:46:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> If you pulled from "master" branch, then --version would still
> say 0.99.7; I agree it is confusing.  On the other hand, I do
> not think we would want to increment the version string with
> every little changes, so...

	Every little change, no.  But ANNOUNCEd releases should be
considered 'major' from this point of view.  I don't think a little
extra version number incrementing is too big a deal.

Joel

-- 
Life's Little Instruction Book #451

	"Don't be afraid to say, 'I'm sorry.'"

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127

Petr Baudis· Sep 23, 2005, 20:55 UTC · re: Joel Becker · lore

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

Dear diary, on Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:52:42PM CEST, I got a letter where Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> told me that...

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 01:46:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > If you pulled from "master" branch, then --version would still
> > say 0.99.7; I agree it is confusing.  On the other hand, I do
> > not think we would want to increment the version string with
> > every little changes, so...
> 
> 	Every little change, no.  But ANNOUNCEd releases should be
> considered 'major' from this point of view.  I don't think a little
> extra version number incrementing is too big a deal.

The point is that the bugfix releases aren't tagged on the master branch but on the maint branch.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.

Junio C Hamano· Sep 23, 2005, 21:45 UTC · re: Joel Becker · lore

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 01:46:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> If you pulled from "master" branch, then --version would still
>> say 0.99.7; I agree it is confusing.  On the other hand, I do
>> not think we would want to increment the version string with
>> every little changes, so...
>
> 	Every little change, no.  But ANNOUNCEd releases should be
> considered 'major' from this point of view.  I don't think a little
> extra version number incrementing is too big a deal.

Yes, 'maint' has the GIT_VERSION bumped in the Makefile (0.99.7a, 0.99.7b) and that is propagated to 'git --version'.

What I was having trouble was what to do with the stuff we put in the 'master' between 0.99.7 and 0.99.8. 'maint' was *forked* from 0.99.7, not just tagging some midpoint in 'master' line for obvious reasons, so the 'git --version' on the 'master' side does not have much to do with what happens on the 'maint' side.

We could say, immediately after 0.99.7 is released, bump the GIT_VERSION in the 'master' branch to 0.99.8-pre or something like that.

We need to pick something that sorts after '0.99.7a', '0.99.7b', etc. and before '0.99.8'. Somebody needs to come up with what is appropriate for version number ordering scheme employed by binary packaged distributions. I know 0.99.8-pre does not sort before 0.99.8 on Debian. Probably '0.99.7zzz'?

Petr Baudis· Sep 23, 2005, 20:54 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

Dear diary, on Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:46:14PM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...

> If you pulled from "master" branch, then --version would still
> say 0.99.7; I agree it is confusing.  On the other hand, I do
> not think we would want to increment the version string with
> every little changes, so...

In ELinks, we pseudo-bump the version number from v1.2.3 to v1.2.3.CVS (now v1.2.3.GIT) right after the release.

In Cogito, we append the commit ID current at the time of build to cg-version output (if it was built from GIT-tracked working directory).

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.

Junio C Hamano· Sep 24, 2005, 21:59 UTC · re: Petr Baudis · lore

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.7b

Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Dear diary, on Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:46:14PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
>> If you pulled from "master" branch, then --version would still
>> say 0.99.7; I agree it is confusing.  On the other hand, I do
>> not think we would want to increment the version string with
>> every little changes, so...
>
> In ELinks, we pseudo-bump the version number from v1.2.3 to v1.2.3.CVS
> (now v1.2.3.GIT) right after the release.

That's a nice way of doing it.  Maybe I should follow suit.