search for: buildnum

...wrote: > Personally, I’m hugely in favor of moving llvm’s source hosting to github at > some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool and > consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely beneficial. For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias: alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all | wc -l" So from the shell: $ git buildnum 17475 This number increases monotonically per commit. Our build scripts make this number available in various #define forms. (We use a little extra scripting logic to also determi...

...nally, I’m hugely in favor of moving llvm’s source hosting to github at >> some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool and >> consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely beneficial. > > For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias: > > alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all | wc -l" > > So from the shell: > > $ git buildnum > 17475 > > This number increases monotonically per commit. It does not work with branches though (we're not really planning to have branches...

...ng llvm’s source hosting to > github at > >> some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool > and > >> consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely > beneficial. > > > > For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias: > > > > alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all | wc -l" Or the cheaper "git rev-list --count --all" if your git is new enough. We do something like this as well. > > > > So from the shell: > > > > $ git buildnum > > 1...

...to >> github at >>>> some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool >> and >>>> consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely >> beneficial. >>> >>> For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias: >>> >>> alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all | wc -l" > > Or the cheaper "git rev-list --count --all" if your git is new enough. > We do something like this as well. > >>> >>> So from the shell: >>> &...

...t;>>> some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool > >> and > >>>> consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely > >> beneficial. > >>> > >>> For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias: > >>> > >>> alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all | wc -l" > > > > Or the cheaper "git rev-list --count --all" if your git is new enough. > > We do something like this as well. > > > >>> > >>&gt...

> On May 31, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > There has been some discussion on IRC about SVN hosting and the perils > of doing it ourselves. The consensus on the current discussion was > that moving to a Git-only solution would have some disvantages, but > many advantages. Furthermore, not hosting our own repos would save us

Folks, There has been some discussion on IRC about SVN hosting and the perils of doing it ourselves. The consensus on the current discussion was that moving to a Git-only solution would have some disvantages, but many advantages. Furthermore, not hosting our own repos would save us a lot of headaches, admin costs and timed out connections. TL;DR: GitHub + git submodules [1] could replace all the