On 31/7/2023 5:14 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 29.07.23 08:30, Chris Johns wrote: >>> I think this is not really related to the new >>> RTEMS_VERSION_VC_KEY/RTEMS_VERSION_CONTROL_KEY option. The purpose of this >>> option is to give users the ability to define their own version control key. >> >> I think we are broadly aligned however there are different labels for some >> the >> pieces [1]. I have reviewed the existing code and then this change and it >> seems the default is an empty string a user can altered via a config.ini >> file. >> Is this correct? > > In v2 of the patch, the default is "git" indicating that the version control > key > should be obtained using Git.
What version control keys are supported? >> >> Is this per BSP or global? > > This is per BSP. All the configuration options are per BSP. In your config.ini > you can set options for all BSPs via the [DEFAULT] section. Per BSP does not make sense. Having a means for a user to inject anything at build time is confusing to me because it can be different for the same set of sources. >> For me the sources are the controlled item the calls rtems_version() and >> rtems_version_control_key() should report and not what a user can configure. > > We don't control the version control system of the user, so it should be user > configurable. The configuration file controls a build and this setting changes the meaning of the configuration data being built. It does not align. >> Why not just look for a file called VERSION and then a key=value pair that >> is: >> >> RTEMS_VERSION_VC_KEY=foo-bar > > Why not just use what is normally used by the build system? Supporting the > VERSION file needs extra code for only one purpose. Yes releasing RTEMS. At the moment a get clone of a release tag will show a file does not match. In a formal sense that would require a special consideration that would need to be documented and applied. > I think naming this option RTEMS_VERSION_CONTROL_KEY makes more sense, since > the > corresponding RTEMS API directive is rtems_version_control_key(). Is VC a well > known abbreviation? The name in the API is what it is and I am not suggesting it be changed. Maybe it could have been more general to serve a wider purpose than just the VC but it is there now so that time has passed. >> >> And document deployment users add this file and then configuration control >> the >> released sources and this file? > > The config.ini are not included in the sources shipped with RTEMS and they can > be version controlled by the user. That is the central point I am attempting to make. Version data should be the version of the sources shipped and not the build. A build label is different and would clearly state the purpose and if I see a bug report I can ignore it and concentrate on the version data. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel