On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Alexey Verkhovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we still use those hashes for build labels, we'll need to order > builds by mtime of a build directory and display abbreviated build > labels instead of full ones. Or we need to generate our own build > numbers. Either way sucks, in its own special way. Does anyone have a > strong preference or a better idea?
Personally, I'd strongly prefer generated build numbers, because they actually *mean* something to humans, and mtime isn't very obvious and is potentially fragile. Then again, I also strongly prefer bazaar (or mercurial) to git, and they both provide (branch-specific) revision numbers in addition to the (globally unique) revision id, so perhaps my bias is not the same as a git lover's bias. But surely by now someone has written a git plugin/script that will tell you a branch's current revision number? It seems like a trivial thing to do. Another option: you could use a concise date-based build number, e.g. the output from: date "+%y-%j" 08-128 Then the git fans won't be offended that you've used an "obviously inferior" revision number instead of a precious SHA1 hash derivative. ;-P -- Nick _______________________________________________ Cruisecontrolrb-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-users
