On 21 July 2011 11:50, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote:> There is still the major regression with unreadable version numbers. > Given the amount of Bugzilla traffic with "Fixed in...", that's a > non-trivial issue.I wouldn't call that a major regression. For informal use you can quote 8 hex digits of the git commit name, which isn't *much* worse than a 6 digit decimal number. For more rigour, you can use a link to the llvm-commits message in the archive (people already frequently do this) or to the vcs-web interface. Jay.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Jay Foad wrote:> On 21 July 2011 11:50, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > > There is still the major regression with unreadable version numbers. > > Given the amount of Bugzilla traffic with "Fixed in...", that's a > > non-trivial issue. > > I wouldn't call that a major regression. For informal use you can > quote 8 hex digits of the git commit name, which isn't *much* worse > than a 6 digit decimal number. For more rigour, you can use a link to > the llvm-commits message in the archive (people already frequently do > this) or to the vcs-web interface.The problem is answering the question of "do I have it or not". Linear version numbers are much nicer for that. Joerg
On 07/21/2011 01:44 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Jay Foad wrote: >> On 21 July 2011 11:50, Joerg Sonnenberger<joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >>> There is still the major regression with unreadable version numbers. >>> Given the amount of Bugzilla traffic with "Fixed in...", that's a >>> non-trivial issue. >> >> I wouldn't call that a major regression. For informal use you can >> quote 8 hex digits of the git commit name, which isn't *much* worse >> than a 6 digit decimal number. For more rigour, you can use a link to >> the llvm-commits message in the archive (people already frequently do >> this) or to the vcs-web interface. > > The problem is answering the question of "do I have it or not". Linear > version numbers are much nicer for that.Sure. So there will never be any way to get linear version numbers with git. The only way to understand if you have a revision is in your repository is to check with $ git log <hash> or $ git log and search for <hash> If you do not have a repository, you need to guess based on the time of commit and checkout or you need to use a web interface to the repository. I personally never missed the linear numbers. Using git to work with projects like cloog[1], isl[2], pluto[3], Polly, LLVM and clang I got used to search all the time in the history (as it is readily available even for offline use and it is extremely fast). As a result, looking up version numbers easily integrated into my work flow. Did you try to work with git and are you convinced this is a show stopper for you? Or are you looking for specific solutions beyond the ones I have suggested? Cheers Tobi [1] http://repo.or.cz/w/cloog.git [2] http://repo.or.cz/w/isl.git [3] http://repo.or.cz/w/pluto.git
Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> writes:> The problem is answering the question of "do I have it or not". Linear > version numbers are much nicer for that.In the presence of branches, the version number alone doesn't answer this question, because the commit may be more recent than your HEAD, but in another branch. git branch --contains <sha1>, on the other hand, will tell you. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
On Jul 21, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Jay Foad wrote:> I wouldn't call that a major regression. For informal use you can > quote 8 hex digits of the git commit name, which isn't *much* worse > than a 6 digit decimal number. For more rigour, you can use a link to > the llvm-commits message in the archive (people already frequently do > this) or to the vcs-web interface.At some point, the mailing lists will move to llvm.org, so mailing list links shouldn't be considered stable. -Chris