On 02/22/2017 10:47 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
Also, if each NMS sub project has a different version than maybe it would
actually be better to have a separate repo for each one. That might be a
pain to manage though but would make the releases independent.
They already are in separate repos now.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/activemq-dotnet/Apache.NMS/
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/activemq-dotnet/Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ/
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/activemq-dotnet/Apache.NMS.Stomp/
etc.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:11 PM, Jim Gomes <jgo...@apache.org> wrote:
I guess I didn't explain the requirements clearly. Tagging is not the
solution. This is about automatically injecting the revision of the
source
code that was used to build the product. For example, let's say the
Subversion repository is at revision number 18634. I am building
Apache.NMS version 1.7.0. When I run my build, it will automatically
produce an assembly with the embedded version number 1.7.0.18634. That
last number can't be a hash.
Why can’t it be a hash? Or at least the git short hash? That’s the
exact revision id for git so if that is what the purpose is, then that is
what should go there.
If I were to commit any change at all (not
necessarily creating a tag or branch, just a change), then the repository
would increment to 18635. If I build again, it would produce Apache.NMS
1.7.0.18635. Automatically. This way there is no confusion as to what
exact revisions went into creating that assembly, and I have a
reproducible
build.
And the has accomplishes the same thing if the goal is a reproducible
build.
--
Daniel Kulp
dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
