On 01/06/2011 02:44 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> gnulib-commit-check: >> git submodule foreach test '$$(git rev-parse origin)' \ >> = '"$$(git merge-base --independent origin $$sha1)"' > > Thanks again for the fine test. > It passed my tests, so I propose this in your name: > >>From 8ba2dc9163f753c4953e8686f2b611d4e2a3ae84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:35:18 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] maint.mk: add pre-release check to ensure submodule commits > are public
Yes, feel free to push that in my name to gnulib. > +submodule-checks = no-submodule-changes public-submodule-commit If someone complains about these two tests being git-centric, a solution for a project using maint.mk with a different VCS would be to make submodule-checks defined via ?=, so that it can be overridden in cfg.mk to an empty macro to skip git submodule consistency checks. But I'm okay using = instead of ?= and waiting until someone requests that extra flexibility, if you don't want to change it now. > +# Ensure that each sub-module commit we're using is public. > +# Without this, it is too easy to tag and release code that > +# cannot be built from a fresh clone. > +.PHONY: public-submodule-commit > +public-submodule-commit: And public-submodule-commit is definitely a better name than gnulib-commit-check. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature