On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:31 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Jim Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: > > As well as call a vote. A Discussion is only a discussion. It takes a > Vote > > to enable action. > > I really didn't think it would be needed.. you are the only one > against it so far. I think we are have votes on this thread.. do you > need it to be formal? > Yes, I think a Vote is a good idea. Makes it very clear, and follows established Apache process, and gives a definite cut-off point. > > > 1. I am unable to have multiple branches checked out on the machine at > the > > same time, which stops me from building all versions. This is especially > <SNIP> > > cp -r original-directory new-directory > cd .. new-directory > git checokut your-other-branch > Does that duplicate the entire Git repository? It kind of looks like it does. > > repository auto-generated sequential number. Does anyone have any > > suggestions on how to accomplish a similar reproducible build using Git? > > > > you don't need really need that, you can use the Hash as the version > ID if you require the git. > > You just increment the version as everybody else does. > I thought everyone else used the Subversion number the way I do. I manually increment the <major>, <minor> and <rev> numbers, and generate the <build> number automatically. It is not possible to embed a hash number into a build number, so I'm not clear on what you are suggesting. > It's just a matter of you getting used with git. > I can get used to Git. I've used many version control systems (RCS, VCS, PVCS, SourceSafe, Perforce, Subversion, Mercurial, etc.). So, I look to those more experienced to help migrate to it. I see that it has advantages, but it also has disadvantages.
