Note that the packager already prepends the git hash in the comments at the top of the .js files :)
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@google.com> wrote: > I'm all for running `git rev-parse HEAD` when running jake, and putting the > output somewhere where a dev can easily get to it -- ideally in the > compiled JS file itself, so there's no doubt about what version is being > used. > > (Dropping the suggestion to use the current date in this case, if it's > auto-generated) > > While we're at it, I would run something like `git status --porcelain | > grep -v '^\?'` with it, to report whether there were any modified files > since the commit, and calling the resulting version master-<hash>-modified > if there are. > > Ian > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > Do you mean to suggest that the current commit hash is inserted when e.g. > > running jake? I'de +1 that. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I like the 'master' version suggestion. > > > > > > Implementation details aside - this could be a packaging artifact > (coho?) > > > that puts a file with the current branch-hash in it. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > From cordova-dev, hash 125dca5: > > > > > Incrememnting the version can be done on the branch, right? This > > > doesn't > > > > need to be added back to master. > > > > > > > > I think that generally the answer to that commit message should be > > 'yes', > > > > we shouldn't be making the claim that the master branch represents > any > > > > particular version of cordova. > > > > > > > > If the files in the master branch were going to have a version at > all, > > it > > > > would be something like '2.7.0-prerelease', to indicate what the code > > is > > > > going to become. After some discussions here, though, I think it is > > > > probably best just to change the versions of all of the files to > > 'master' > > > > -- to have that be the permanent revision number for the master > branch. > > > > > > > > (The only reason I can think to have a version associated with those > > > files > > > > is so that people reporting bugs can say "I'm running this version". > > > > However, if they're running files checked out of the master branch on > > > > github, then we need to know more specifically what commit they're > > using. > > > > It would be far more useful for them to be able to say "It's version > > > > master-20130402", or to include the commit hash, as "master-5a6b48a", > > > than > > > > a general "2.7.0-pre".) > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > >
