Hello, we should commit to trunk and if that code should also be in 42x or 417 we can cherry- pick the commit.
regards Mechtilde Am 15.08.19 um 14:02 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > 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> > -- Mechtilde Stehmann ## Apache OpenOffice ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows ## Debian Developer ## PGP encryption welcome ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
