Anyone have issues if we also commit to the 42X and 417 branches?
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 1:03 AM, Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote: > > I pushed the change to gitbox trunk. > > On 15.08.19 00:15, Kay Schenk wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:07 PM Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Kay, >>> >>> Am 15.08.19 um 00:02 schrieb Kay Schenk: >>>> 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). >>> This is simply because the code we are discussing about is still not >>> committed. >>> >>> I applied Peters patch and it looks like this: >>> >>> >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tkal1y9b09vrhse/VirtualBox_Windows%2010%20AOO-Build_14_08_2019_16_14_33.png?dl=0 >>> >>> Matthias >>> >> OK. Good. >> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > <mailto:dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org>
