[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@… Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment(by martinl): Replying to [comment:63 hamish]: suggested patch: +1 to apply the patch todo: should `g.version -g` revision= report blank or just not be printed at all? I would say report black. -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:64 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@… Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: blocker | Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Changes (by martinl): * priority: normal = blocker Comment: This issue should be solved before releasing 6.4.2. Increasing the priority. -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:65 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2
Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Changes (by hamish):
* status: closed = reopened
* resolution: fixed =
Comment:
Hi,
g.version in 6.4.2rc3 reports:
{{{
GRASS 6.4.2RC3exported (2012)
}}}
because include/Make/Grass.make has:
{{{
GRASS_VERSION_SVN = exported
}}}
(`svnversion`: If invoked on a directory that is not a working copy, an
exported directory say, the program will output 'exported'.)
suggested patch:
{{{
Index: configure.in
===
--- configure.in(revision 50554)
+++ configure.in(working copy)
@@ -128,6 +128,9 @@
AC_PATH_PROG(SVN_VERSION, svnversion, no)
if test $SVN_VERSION != no ; then
GRASS_VERSION_SVN=`$SVN_VERSION -c | cut -f2 -d:`
+ if test $GRASS_VERSION_SVN = exported ; then
+ GRASS_VERSION_SVN=
+ fi
fi
AC_SUBST(GRASS_VERSION_FILE)
}}}
todo: should `g.version -g` revision= report blank or just not be printed
at all?
Hamish
--
Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:63
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2
Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment(by martinl):
Replying to [comment:58 martinl]:
The release branch must be tested when .svn/ dirs and svn CLI tools
are not present on the tarball/build machine. (in my quick tests last year
I just su renamed those temporarily in /usr/bin/, see earlier comments in
the ticket) It would not be nice to only discover a bug once the tarball
was released and a non-dev tried it.
in this case `GRASS_VERSION_SVN` in `include/Make/Grass` remains empty
and `g.version -g` reports
{{{
version=6.5.svn
revision=
date=2011
}}}
We are on the beginning of release circle for 6.4.2, I would vote for
backporting this staff to releasebranch_6_4. It's a good time for that at
this point.
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:59
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment(by hamish): Replying to [comment:56 hamish]: Still, it is only relevant for svn (nightly) builds, and is redundant for final releases. It's fundamentally a dev branch aid. Replying to [comment:57 martinl]: It's not right, it's not redundant for final release at all. Currently users have no information what is the revision of their build (g.version, wxGUI About window). It's common information which user could expect to know. It's completely redundant for a tagged release. In that case the version number of GRASS is all that is important and the svn version is simply an unused development artifact, 100% documented if they care to look it up (~10 sec in trac), but mostly irrelevant trivia to non-developers. I suppose someone with a random nightly build of 6.4.svn would not know if they are before or after a point release, or someone just saw a fixed in stable branch r12345 and wanted to quickly know if their GRASS was newer or older than that, but that's about it. The release branch must be tested when .svn/ dirs and svn CLI tools are not present on the tarball/build machine. (in my quick tests last year I just su renamed those temporarily in /usr/bin/, see earlier comments in the ticket) It would not be nice to only discover a bug once the tarball was released and a non-dev tried it. This feature has been introduced 17 months ago (r39622). Recently backported to devbr6 by you. What time is need to get finally this minor feature to release? ;-) you miss my point. it has been tested in developers' svn builds, but never outside of svn builds, which is what a point release is (svn export). A beta1 or RC1 release is a suitable time to test that, so if you want to take responsibility it, by all means go for backport now. And again, the primary value of this feature is in identifying custom svn builds, not final releases who's exact code-set is already known. (someone says there's a bug in 6.4.0rc2 you know ''exactly'' what assortment code they are talking about; if they say there's a bug in 6.5svn with no rev.. how old is that? what code is that? maybe we can learn the year. that's why this feature is important in dev branches) anyway, nothing new to add, let's move on. tx, Hamish ps- I'd ask (everyone) that 6.4.1 tickets not be bulk reassigned to 6.4.2 in trac until we deal to these tickets specifically assigned to 6.4.2 already. -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:60 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment(by martinl): Replying to [comment:60 hamish]: It's not right, it's not redundant for final release at all. Currently users have no information what is the revision of their build (g.version, wxGUI About window). It's common information which user could expect to know. It's completely redundant for a tagged release. In that case the version number of GRASS is all that is important and the svn version is simply an unused development artifact, 100% documented if they care to look it up (~10 sec in trac), but mostly irrelevant trivia to non-developers. I suppose someone with a random nightly build of 6.4.svn would not know if they are before or after a point release, or someone just saw a fixed in stable branch r12345 and wanted to quickly know if their GRASS was newer or older than that, but that's about it. In one sentence: I can't see any point why user should not have access to this information (in the case he/she is interested about that). The release branch must be tested when .svn/ dirs and svn CLI tools are not present on the tarball/build machine. (in my quick tests last year I just su renamed those temporarily in /usr/bin/, see earlier comments in the ticket) It would not be nice to only discover a bug once the tarball was released and a non-dev tried it. This feature has been introduced 17 months ago (r39622). Recently backported to devbr6 by you. What time is need to get finally this minor feature to release? ;-) you miss my point. it has been tested in developers' svn builds, but never outside of svn builds, which is what a point release is (svn export). A beta1 or RC1 release is a suitable time to test that, so if you want to take responsibility it, by all means go for backport now. thanks, I can take this kind of responsibility, going to backport it. -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:61 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Changes (by martinl): * status: reopened = new * cc: grass-dev@… (removed) * cc: martinl (added) * priority: major = normal * owner: martinl = grass-dev@… * milestone: 6.5.0 = 6.4.2 * keywords: g.version = g.version, configure Comment: Replying to [comment:53 hamish]: This touches the core configure files, is not relevant in a tagged stable release, and is not tested well in 6.5svn. ''Possibly'' for the 6.4.2 stable cycle, even though it isn't a bugfix, but not as a last minute change in this one. No way. OK, so let me change ''at least'' milestone to 6.4.2 to keep record. ps- rc7? It's not common to publish final release after two months from the last RC (3 Jan). So I assume that there will RC7 before the final release. -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:54 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment(by martinl): Replying to [comment:54 martinl]: ps- rc7? It's not common to publish final release after two months from the last RC (3 Jan). So I assume that there will RC7 before the final release. Sorry, apparently I was so frustrated from never ending release circle of 6.4.0 that I can just think about RC6 or RC7;-) Of course I meant RC2. -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:55 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment(by hamish): Replying to [comment:54 martinl]: OK, so let me change ''at least'' milestone to 6.4.2 to keep record. yes, I realized I picked the wrong box after I submitted it. Still, it is only relevant for svn (nightly) builds, and is redundant for final releases. It's fundamentally a dev branch aid. The release branch must be tested when .svn/ dirs and svn CLI tools are not present on the tarball/build machine. (in my quick tests last year I just su renamed those temporarily in /usr/bin/, see earlier comments in the ticket) It would not be nice to only discover a bug once the tarball was released and a non-dev tried it. Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:56 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment(by martinl): Replying to [comment:56 hamish]: Still, it is only relevant for svn (nightly) builds, and is redundant for final releases. It's fundamentally a dev branch aid. It's not right, it's not redundant for final release at all. Currently users have no information what is the revision of their build (g.version, wxGUI About window). It's common information which user could expect to know. The release branch must be tested when .svn/ dirs and svn CLI tools are not present on the tarball/build machine. (in my quick tests last year I just su renamed those temporarily in /usr/bin/, see earlier comments in the ticket) It would not be nice to only discover a bug once the tarball was released and a non-dev tried it. This feature has been introduced 17 months ago (r39622). Recently backported to devbr6 by you. What time is need to get finally this minor feature to release? ;-) Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:57 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.4.2
Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version, configure
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment(by martinl):
Replying to [comment:56 hamish]:
The release branch must be tested when .svn/ dirs and svn CLI tools are
not present on the tarball/build machine. (in my quick tests last year I
just su renamed those temporarily in /usr/bin/, see earlier comments in
the ticket) It would not be nice to only discover a bug once the tarball
was released and a non-dev tried it.
in this case `GRASS_VERSION_SVN` in `include/Make/Grass` remains empty and
`g.version -g` reports
{{{
version=6.5.svn
revision=
date=2011
}}}
--
Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:58
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.2 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Changes (by martinl): * milestone: 6.5.0 = 6.4.2 Comment: Replying to [comment:51 hamish]: g.version svn checkout rev info backported to 6.5 in r45526, after some slight improvements in trunk (r45525). This is not a candidate for backporting to stable branches. I vote for backporting now, so before 6.4.1.RC7 -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:52 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.5.0 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Changes (by hamish): * milestone: 6.4.2 = 6.5.0 Comment: Replying to [comment:51 hamish]: This is not a candidate for backporting to stable branches. Replying to [comment:52 martinl]: I vote for backporting now, so before 6.4.1.RC7 This touches the core configure files, is not relevant in a tagged stable release, and is not tested well in 6.5svn. ''Possibly'' for the 6.4.2 stable cycle, even though it isn't a bugfix, but not as a last minute change in this one. No way. regards, Hamish ps- rc7? -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:53 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.5.0 Component: Default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Changes (by hamish): * milestone: 6.4.1 = 6.5.0 Comment: g.version svn checkout rev info backported to 6.5 in r45526, after some slight improvements in trunk (r45525). This is not a candidate for backporting to stable branches. I wonder if version grafting should happen directly in Grass.make.in (g7: Platform.make.in) or as now in lib/init/Makefile? Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:51 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.1 Component: default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Changes (by neteler): * milestone: 6.4.0 = 6.4.1 -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:50 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: svn-trunk
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Changes (by neteler):
* milestone: 6.5.0 = 6.4.0
Comment:
I revisited this today:
{{{
after svn up ; make distclean etc:
GRASS 6.4.0svn (spearfish60):~ g.version -r
GRASS 6.4.0svn (2010)
Revision: 37101
Date: 2009-05-10 13:35:38 +0200 (Sun, 10 May 2009)
GRASS 6.4.0svn (spearfish60):~ svn info grass64 | grep Rev
Revision: 42707
Last Changed Rev: 42681
after svn up ; make distclean etc:
GRASS 7.0.svn (spearfish60):~ g.version -r
GRASS 7.0.svn42704 (2010)
Revision: 41297
Date: 2010-03-05 19:25:25 +0100 (Fri, 05 Mar 2010)
GRASS 7.0.svn (spearfish60):~ svn info grass70 | grep Rev
Revision: 42707
Last Changed Rev: 42704
}}}
I would rather remove the -r flag than displaying outdated info.
Of course a real solution would be preferred.
Markus
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:48
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment(by hamish): the next step is to backport ./configure - Platform.make's svnversion - GRASS_VERSION_SVN= magic to gr6.5. I would rather remove the -r flag than displaying outdated info. this is just the latest libgis api version, it's a bug if that is displayed everywhere AS the grass version, but it's not a bug in g.version and not actually outdated. It can be important to know the gis.h version once you start to build addons, so I'd argue to save the flag. just don't show that rev in large text on the start up screen as something important. * note that folks building 6.4.0 from the tarball will likely not have Subversion installed and .svn/ dirs are stripped, so svnversion tricks will not work for final releases. but that's not a problem because knowing the exact svn revision is only pertinent for svn checkouts, i.e. the exact svn version is already known for tagged releases so not very relevant. It is very useful for builds of long-lived development branches however (6.5, 7). anyway, if it is eventually backported to 6.4, we need to ensure it doesn't get included in the final release, and we need to test the ./configure in the final tarball works correctly after .svn/ has been stripped, etc. regards, Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:49 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.5.0 Component: default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): Glynn: IMHO, the a: should be stripped; we're only interested in the last revision, not the first. done in trunk, r40862. Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:45 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.5.0 Component: default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Changes (by hamish): * version: 6.4.0 RCs = svn-trunk * milestone: 6.4.0 = 6.5.0 Comment: Markus wrote: What is the state in GRASS 6.4? I tried right now and get: This ''should'' be the revision of the latest commit to gis.h, which is why the -r flag says GIS library revision number and time. This is what is important to qgis, core API, etc. The wx help-about window says GIS Library Revision which I'm sure will still confuse some folks in the absence of an over-all revision number, but none the less is fairly clear.. but indeed we are at [r40373] note that is moslty just interesting for dev branch builds, for a tagged release the exact version of the codebase that the version number refers to is known. Perhaps we have to determine the rev version on compile time? which is what the `svnversion -c` added to ./configure in trunk is supposed to help with. I'm still waiting to gain confidence/test that this will be ok for folks without svn tools installed and/or a regular internet connection who have a copy of the snapshot to work with. Note the full release tarballs have the .svn/ stuff stripped away so in a full release `svnversion -c` or other tricks will not work. bumping the target up to the devel branches. Hamish -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:41 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.5.0
Component: default | Version: svn-trunk
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by hamish):
Replying to [comment:40 neteler]:
The same applies to GRASS 7:
{{{
GRASS 7.0.svn (latlong_wgs84):~/grass64/include g.version -r
GRASS 7.0.svn10129:40343M (2010)
Revision: 39888
Date: 2009-12-04 08:21:40 +0100 (Fri, 04 Dec 2009)
}}}
note that here Martin has built the current '`svnversion -c`' rev number
into the main version number (`g.version` with no flags).
the a:bM syntax indicates that your tree has local modifications.
Hamish
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:42
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.5.0 Component: default | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by glynn): Replying to [comment:42 hamish]: the a:bM syntax indicates that your tree has local modifications. The trailing M indicates modification; an unmodified tree would have a:b. IMHO, the a: should be stripped; we're only interested in the last revision, not the first. -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:43 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.5.0
Component: default | Version: svn-trunk
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by hamish):
Replying to [comment:43 glynn]:
Replying to [comment:42 hamish]:
the a:bM syntax indicates that your tree has local
modifications.
The trailing M indicates modification; an unmodified tree would
have a:b. IMHO, the a: should be stripped; we're only
interested in the last revision, not the first.
so,
{{{
GRASS_VERSION_SVN=
AC_PATH_PROG(SVN_VERSION, svnversion, no)
if test $SVN_VERSION != no ; then
- GRASS_VERSION_SVN=`$SVN_VERSION -c`
+ GRASS_VERSION_SVN=`$SVN_VERSION -c | cut -f2 -d:`
fi
}}}
Hamish
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:44
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by neteler):
What is the state in GRASS 6.4? I tried right now and get:
{{{
GRASS 6.4.0svn (latlong_wgs84):~ g.version -r
GRASS 6.4.0svn (2009)
}}}
because of
{{{
[nete...@north include]$ grep GIS_H_VERSION *
gis.h:#define GIS_H_VERSION $Revision: 37101 $
gis.h:#define G_gisinit(pgm) G__gisinit(GIS_H_VERSION, (pgm))
gis.h:#define G_no_gisinit() G__no_gisinit(GIS_H_VERSION)
}}}
but indeed we are at
{{{
[nete...@north include]$ svn up
At revision 40373.
}}}
The number comes from the check-in of the file itself:
{{{
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass/branches/releasebranch_6_4/include
Name Size Rev AgeLast Change
...
gis.h 19.0 kB 37101 8 monthshamish: backport GIS_H_DATE
}}}
The same applies to GRASS 7:
{{{
GRASS 7.0.svn (latlong_wgs84):~/grass64/include g.version -r
GRASS 7.0.svn10129:40343M (2010)
Revision: 39888
Date: 2009-12-04 08:21:40 +0100 (Fri, 04 Dec 2009)
}}}
{{{
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass/trunk/include
Name Size Rev AgeLast Change
...
gis.h 12.4 kB 39888 1 monthmartinl: synchronize vector modules
(G_OPT_V_FIELD_ALL)
}}}
while
{{{
svn info | grep Revision
Revision: 40373
}}}
Perhaps we have to determine the rev version on compile time?
Markus
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:40
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): I'd drop the --verbose option and just make the version number solid. It's a neat trick, but the rev number is usually what you want to see and most folks won't discover the --v by chance. The --quiet to turn off the date is an interesting idea though. I wonder if we can use something like the last line of `svn info` to better set the date. Manually setting it is not feasible and by-year is only so useful. I understand that GRASS 7.0.svn.40065 is easier to .split(), but still I would put my vote for GRASS 7.0.svn40065. It matches historical and external conventions better. It's mostly cosmetic though. Any one else have an opinion? any testing on how well it reverts to include/VERSION if the svnversion program (just downloaded weekly snapshot) or the .svn/ dir is not found (for final releases)? thanks, Hamish -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:31 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by martinl):
Replying to [comment:31 hamish]:
I'd drop the --verbose option and just make the version number solid.
It's a neat trick, but the rev number is usually what you want to see and
most folks won't discover the --v by chance.
The default version formatting would not probably contain info about
revision number, e.g. as used for manual page header. We could add new
flag or just modify existing {{{-r}}} to print both revision numbers(?)
Martin
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:32
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): Replying to [comment:31 hamish]: I'd drop the --verbose option and just make the version number solid. It's a neat trick, but the rev number is usually what you want to see and most folks won't discover the --v by chance. Replying to [comment:32 martinl]: The default version formatting would not probably contain info about revision number, I disagree, when working with a SVN copy you always should know the exact rev number you are dealing with. 6.5svn or 7.0svn both cover code over years of development which represents completely different, well, everything. Without the rev number the version data is mostly useless. e.g. as used for manual page header. For things like help pages headers where you just want like GRASS 6.4: Raster Modules you can always parse the string (or probably easier to just hard code it..). For final releases all the extra noise is gone anyway and replaced with simply .z, so it isn't a problem there. 2c, Hamish -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:33 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by martinl):
Replying to [comment:33 hamish]:
The default version formatting would not probably contain info
about revision number,
I disagree, when working with a SVN copy you always should know the
exact rev number you are dealing with. 6.5svn or 7.0svn both cover code
over years of development which represents completely different, well,
everything. Without the rev number the version data is mostly useless.
OK, probably you are right. Changed in r40111.
e.g. as used for manual page header.
For things like help pages headers where you just want like GRASS 6.4:
Raster Modules you can always parse the string (or probably easier to
just hard code it..). For final releases all the extra noise is gone
anyway and replaced with simply .z, so it isn't a problem there.
{{{g.version --q}}} currently prints only version number. Well, probably
it's not a good idea, verbose levels are used for progress information
which is not this case. What do you think?
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:34
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by martinl):
Replying to [comment:34 martinl]:
I disagree, when working with a SVN copy you always should know the
exact rev number you are dealing with. 6.5svn or 7.0svn both cover code
over years of development which represents completely different, well,
everything. Without the rev number the version data is mostly useless.
OK, probably you are right. Changed in r40111.
BTW, what is preferable form of {{{etc/VERSIONNUMBER}}}? Current is
{{{
7.0.svn rx
}}}
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:35
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by glynn): Replying to [comment:31 hamish]: I'd drop the --verbose option and just make the version number solid. It's a neat trick, but the rev number is usually what you want to see and most folks won't discover the --v by chance. The --quiet to turn off the date is an interesting idea though. I think that these are abusing the --v/--q options. If you want different formats, add specific options for them. That should probably include a -g option to output the individual components in var=val format for the benefit of scripts. -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:36 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): right, right. The GRASS_VERBOSE enviro variable should only have an effect on messages to stderr, not on what data gets written to stdout. if forgottenly set, it could cause many problems with parsing scripts. I'm not sure if a -g flag is really needed, the string is easy enough to parse as it is, and almost all the parsing of it I've done in the past has to be to determine if I should send grass5 or grass6 commands. Martin: BTW, what is preferable form of etc/VERSIONNUMBER? Current is 7.0.svn rx where's that used? as far as the startup welcome screen goes, I think 7.0.svn rx is very good. Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:37 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): Replying to [comment:37 hamish]: I'm not sure if a -g flag is really needed, but if you want one, I have no real objection to it, other than it is completely redundant- there is already a $GRASS_VERBOSE enviro variable set. Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:38 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): acck s/GRASS_VERBOSE/GRASS_VERSION/ -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:39 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by martinl):
Replying to [comment:27 hamish]:
ok, I've had a chance to get back to this one, -1 in its current form.
instead of:
{{{
fprintf(stdout, GRASS %s (%s) - r%s\n,
GRASS_VERSION_NUMBER, GRASS_VERSION_DATE,
GRASS_VERSION_SVN);
}}}
please consider:
{{{
fprintf(stdout, GRASS %s.svn%s (%s)\n,
GRASS_VERSION_NUMBER, GRASS_VERSION_SVN,
GRASS_VERSION_DATE);
}}}
OK, done in r40090. {{{g.version}}} also reflects verbosity level.
{{{
g.version
GRASS 7.0.svn (2009)
g.version --q
GRASS 7.0.svn
g.version --v
GRASS 7.0.svn.40065 (2009)
}}}
[...]
Martin
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:30
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by hamish):
If no objections I will backport it into devbr6 and then
close the ticket.
ok, I've had a chance to get back to this one, -1 in its current form.
instead of:
{{{
fprintf(stdout, GRASS %s (%s) - r%s\n,
GRASS_VERSION_NUMBER, GRASS_VERSION_DATE,
GRASS_VERSION_SVN);
}}}
please consider:
{{{
fprintf(stdout, GRASS %s.svn%s (%s)\n,
GRASS_VERSION_NUMBER, GRASS_VERSION_SVN,
GRASS_VERSION_DATE);
}}}
a number of things parse the g.version output in varying ways.
as it is hard to predict what that will be and it would be a
shame to break them, a x.y.svn12345 version string would be more
robust.
lib/init/Makefile adds the rev number to GRASS_VERSION_NUMBER,
then g.version does it again.. ? what am I missing..
'svnversion' gives the wrong answer. e.g. for 6.2svn the result should
be 6.2.svn30152 but after 'cd releasebranch_6_2; svn up' svnversion
reports r40065. ie the global repo rev number, not the latest change
to the branch rev.; is the relevant one.
see comment:17, proposal in comment:20, and
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/log/grass/branches/releasebranch_6_2
the proposal in comment:20 also covers the case when a weekly source
snapshot has been downloaded but subversion is not installed (which
is the expected situation for non-devs).
As Markus noted, svnversion scans the entire tree, which takes some time.
On the plus side we'd know in bug reports if the code is as expected
or if it has been altered. (that's what the M at the end of the rev
means)
'svn info' is no good due to the global rev number problem as described
above.
I'm not very good at reading autoconf magic, but it is written so
that for formal releases with all .svn/ removed it plays nice, yes?
consider adding final version number to the ./configure end-of-script
feature summary.
thanks,
Hamish
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:27
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by glynn): Replying to [comment:27 hamish]: 'svnversion' gives the wrong answer. e.g. for 6.2svn the result should be 6.2.svn30152 but after 'cd releasebranch_6_2; svn up' svnversion reports r40065. ie the global repo rev number, not the latest change to the branch rev.; is the relevant one. You can use `svnversion -c` to get the last-changed revision, which is (presumably) what we want here. -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:28 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by martinl): Replying to [comment:28 glynn]: Replying to [comment:27 hamish]: 'svnversion' gives the wrong answer. e.g. for 6.2svn the result should be 6.2.svn30152 but after 'cd releasebranch_6_2; svn up' svnversion reports r40065. ie the global repo rev number, not the latest change to the branch rev.; is the relevant one. You can use `svnversion -c` to get the last-changed revision, which is (presumably) what we want here. Right, should be fixed in r40066. -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:29 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by martinl): Replying to [comment:22 martinl]: Replying to [comment:21 hamish]: `g.version -r` backported to the 6.4 branch now has $keyword$ lint removed. I added 'svnversion' hack to configure in r39622. Seems to better then nothing. Please review it. If no objections I will backport it into devbr6 and then close the ticket. Martin -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:25 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by neteler):
{{{
./configure ...
checking for source directory... /home/neteler/grass70
checking for build directory... /home/neteler/grass70
checking for svnversion... /usr/bin/svnversion # = takes 30 seconds
checking for MacOSX App... no
checking for MacOSX architectures... no
...
}}}
It reports (I didn't make distclean but recompiled):
{{{
GRASS 7.0.svn (spearfish60):~ g.version -c
GRASS 7.0.svn (2009) - r39627M
GRASS 7.0.svn (spearfish60):~ g.version -r
GRASS 7.0.svn (2009) - r39627M
Revision: 39136
Date: 2009-09-12 08:17:35 +0200 (Sat, 12 Sep 2009)
}}}
(not sure where the M comes from and what 'Revision: 39136' might be)
svn info reports:
{{{
GRASS 7.0.svn (spearfish60):~/grass70 svn info
Path: .
URL: https://svn.osgeo.org/grass/grass/trunk
Repository Root: https://svn.osgeo.org/grass
Repository UUID: 15284696-431f-4ddb-bdfa-cd5b030d7da7
Revision: 39627
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: martinl
Last Changed Rev: 39626
Last Changed Date: 2009-10-26 23:10:31 +0100 (Mon, 26 Oct 2009)
}}}
Looks (almost) fine to me!
Markus
--
Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:23
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by martinl): Replying to [comment:21 hamish]: `g.version -r` backported to the 6.4 branch now has $keyword$ lint removed. I added 'svnversion' hack to configure in r39622. Seems to better then nothing. Please review it. Martin -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:22 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): `g.version -r` backported to the 6.4 branch now has $keyword$ lint removed. -- Ticket URL: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:21 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by hamish):
I have now applied the new g.version -r flag in trunk (r37158) and devbr6
(r37233).
Ideas of where to go from here:
- in the wxGUI Help-About instead of just a misleading $Rev$, change the
version number to be:
{{{
wxPython GUI: $Rev$
libgrass: $Rev$ (pull from `g.version -r`)
}}}
- some autoincrement a number in a file without triggering a rev script
as a checkin-hook could maintain a global branch rev number date for
versioning use, but it would need to be done on the server and might be a
PITA.
- we can use the 'svn info' command line tool to grab global-project rev
(if svn is installed on the local system), as well as the branch's global
rev (if svn is installed).
- proposal: grep the top .svn/ dir manually so it doesn't matter if `svn`
is installed or not:
{{{
REV=
if [ -d .svn ] ; then
REV=`head -n 11 .svn/entries | tail -n 1`
REV_DATE=`head -n 10 .svn/entries | tail -n 1`
fi
# would happen in build scripts, but e.g.
FULL_VERSION=$GRASS_VERSION$REV
}}}
line 11 of .svn/entries is the rev number of the last change in that
branch. line 10 is the timestamp of that commit.
That would only happen if include/VERSION has svn in it.
Hamish
--
Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:20
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by martinl):
Replying to [comment:14 hamish]:
{{{
svn log --limit 1 --quiet --xml | grep 'revision=' | cut -f2 -d''
37100
svn log --limit 1 --quiet --xml | grep 'date' | \
sed -e 's/T.*//' -e 's/.*//'
2009-05-10
svn log --limit 1 --quiet | grep '(' | \
sed -e 's/.*(//' -e 's/)$//' | cut -f3,4 -d' '
May 2009
}}}
why don't use
{{{
svn info
}}}
?
Martin
--
Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:15
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
--+-
Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl
Type: enhancement | Status: reopened
Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Resolution: |Keywords: g.version
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--+-
Comment (by jef):
Replying to [comment:15 martinl]:
why don't use
{{{
svn info
}}}
?
or {{{svnversion}}}
--
Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:16
GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): thanks for mentioning `svn info`, I hadn't seen that. However, AFAICT `svn info` and `svnversion` both give the rev number of the entire repo, not the latest change to that branch. using the `svn log` method would keep the version unchanged for e.g. GRASS 5.4.2 since the last time that branch was actually modified. otherwise all branches+trunk versions change each time any modification is made globally (e.g. to grass-web or trunk), when in fact they haven't changed at all. the downside of `svn log` is that it is rather slow and requires internet access. Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:17 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by hamish): Replying to [comment:17 hamish]: the downside of `svn log` is that it is rather slow and requires internet access. ... which probably disqualifies it, not to mention the extra load on the server. Hamish -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:18 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Comment (by glynn): Replying to [comment:14 hamish]: - or, modify the main Makefile and add `svnversion -n .` somewhere. see http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#version-value-in-source But that gives the rev of the overall repo, not just the branch we are using. You need to handle the case of compiling from a snapshot tarball on a system which doesn't have svn. -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:19 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev
#587: svn versions should better reflect svn rev --+- Reporter: hamish | Owner: martinl Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: major| Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: default | Version: 6.4.0 RCs Resolution: |Keywords: g.version Platform: All | Cpu: All --+- Changes (by hamish): * status: closed = reopened * type: defect = enhancement * component: wxGUI = default * summary: WinGRASS: can't open a map for wxDigitizing = svn versions should better reflect svn rev * platform: MSWindows XP = All * keywords: wingrass digitize = g.version * resolution: duplicate = * cpu: x86-32 = All Comment: hijacked ticket, but the orig was a dud anyway -- Ticket URL: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/587#comment:13 GRASS GIS http://grass.osgeo.org ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
