On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:24 PM Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > Am 14.08.19 um 22:02 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > >> On Aug 14, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Matthias Seidel wrote: > >>> We already have the build id, the build > >>> date and now the git hash (which is a unique link to the last commit it > >>> was based on) > >>> This is how we did it with SVN, why should we change it? > >> > >> Because we are dropping information. The SVN revisions are always > increasing, and thus (independent on the build date, which can be at any > moment) I can compare two builds and retain information on which came first. > >> > >> With git of course this doesn't hold, i.e., you cannot say which commit > came earlier between abcd1234 and 5678abcd. So I see some added value if we > enrich it this way. > > > > Is that needed though? I had thought the basic reason for having the SVN > ID is that the end-user knows, for sure, which SVN revision their app was > built from. > > it's unrealistic that the commit was done, e.g., today but the build > weeks later. So, Git hash and build date is not done at the exact same > date and time. But nearly. And here it think it's sufficiant. > > But when we decide to prefix the hash with a date value it's OK for me, > too. > > Marcus > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > I think the date and hash should be displayed in the "build information" screen as the revision information was previously. In Jim's sample display, although the date is displayed, there is no indication of actual "revision" (hash).
-- "And in the end, only kindness matters." -- Jewel, "Hands" ________________________________________ MzK
