On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Oskari Saarenmaa <o...@ohmu.fi> writes: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> I can see some value in that kind of information, ie. knowing what > >> patches a binary was built with, but this would only solve the > >> problem for git checkouts. Even for a git checkout, the binaries > >> won't be automatically updated unless you run "configure" again, > >> which makes it pretty unreliable. > >> > >> -1 from me. > > > I don't think we can solve the problem of finding local changes for all > the > > things people may do, but I'd guess it's pretty common to build > postgresql > > from a clean local git checkout and with this change at least some > portion > > of users would get some extra information. > > I agree with Heikki that this is basically useless. Most of my builds are > from git + uncommitted changes, so telling me what the top commit was has > no notable value. Even if I always committed before building, the hash > tags are only decipherable until I discard that branch.
I nearly always remember to set config's "prefix" to some directory name that describes the uncommitted changes which I am reviewing or testing. Also including into the directory name the git commit to which those changes were applied is awkward and easy to forgot to do--the kind of thing best done by software. (And if I've discarded the branch, that pretty much tells me what I need to know about the binary built from it--obsolete.) Cheers, Jeff
