Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
Hello, Marius Bakke skribis: > I like the "git describe" format: > > $ git describe > v0.16.0-414-ge99d036828 I’d love that. We just need to add the missing bindings to Guile-Git. Hint hint. ;-) As for the date, note that ‘guix describe’ displays the generation’s date already. Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
Am 30.12.18 um 03:48 schrieb Vagrant Cascadian: > The problem with dates from git commits is that git makes no attempt to > keep commits in cronological order, and timezone adds interesting issues > to the mix. For example: Though *author* dates might not be in cronological order, *commit* dates are (as long as none is playing with the graph), see below. Anyway, we are interested in the *commit*-date, thus git need to be told do show this one: $ git log -n 1 --format=format:"%h %ci" 402c36c1d 2018-12-30 17:05:27 -0500 $git log -n 5 --format=format:"Author: %ai %an%nCommitter: %ci %cn%n%n" c180017b6f7e9b6d23238c1fbaac986c435cd35e Author: 2018-12-25 16:29:12 +0200 Efraim Flashner Committer: 2018-12-27 14:55:54 +0200 Efraim Flashner Author: 2018-11-20 17:46:24 +0100 Pierre-Antoine Rouby Committer: 2018-12-27 12:08:25 +0100 Ludovic Courtès Author: 2018-12-27 11:54:55 +0100 Ludovic Courtès Committer: 2018-12-27 12:08:25 +0100 Ludovic Courtès Author: 2018-12-27 11:53:14 +0100 Ludovic Courtès Committer: 2018-12-27 12:08:25 +0100 Ludovic Courtès Author: 2018-12-27 09:46:40 +0100 Julien Lepiller Committer: 2018-12-27 09:47:22 +0100 Julien Lepiller -- Schönen Gruß Hartmut Goebel Dipl.-Informatiker (univ), CISSP, CSSLP, ISO 27001 Lead Implementer Information Security Management, Security Governance, Secure Software Development Goebel Consult, Landshut http://www.goebel-consult.de Blog: https://www.goe-con.de/blog/35.000-gegen-vorratdatenspeicherung Kolumne: https://www.goe-con.de/hartmut-goebel/cissp-gefluester/2010-09-mut-zur-beschraenkung 0x7B752811BF773B65.asc Description: application/pgp-keys
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
On 2018-12-26, Gábor Boskovits wrote: > swedebugia ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec. 25., K, > 22:39): >> On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote: >> > Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported >> > by 'guix --version' as something like: >> > >> > 522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5 >> > >> > I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like: >> > >> > 2018-12-25-522d1b >> > >> > where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0. The problem with dates from git commits is that git makes no attempt to keep commits in cronological order, and timezone adds interesting issues to the mix. For example: $ git log c180017b6f7e9b6d23238c1fbaac986c435cd35e | head -n 50 | grep -E ^'commit|Date' commit c180017b6f7e9b6d23238c1fbaac986c435cd35e Date: Tue Dec 25 16:29:12 2018 +0200 commit 039ccc7118b0a6d0cb09e9cab5caf9f629197d03 Date: Tue Nov 20 17:46:24 2018 +0100 commit 5923102f7b58f0a0120926ec5b81ed48b26a188e Date: Thu Dec 27 11:54:55 2018 +0100 commit ad3c9fbbb9fbc1080c9205d991960494ebe22586 Date: Thu Dec 27 11:53:14 2018 +0100 commit 912f44005dfbf0855d1e5bbc633094bc9456e80b Date: Thu Dec 27 09:46:40 2018 +0100 The most recent commit is from the 25th of December, Followed by the 20th of November, followed by several commits from December 27th... So while I agree that it would be nice to have a date in the version, I'm not sure where you would pull a meaningful date from. > What do you think about a git describe like output? > This gives on current master: v0.16.0-362-g10275b746 > this means the current branch is based on annotated tag > v0.16.0, 362 commits are added on top, and > the sort commit id is 10275b746. Showing the relative version compared to the last tagged version makes a lot of sense to me! It's done in a way that, at least within a specific branch (presuming no rebases), the versions can be trivially compared to know which is the most current. I'd been meaning to ask about this very topic, thanks for bringing it up! live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:50:11 +0100 Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > swedebugia writes: > > > "Björn Höfling" skrev: (29 > > december 2018 12:53:04 CET) > >>On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100 > >>Taylan Kammer wrote: > >> > >>> I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they > >>> immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can > >>> certainly live with that format too. Definitely better than what > >>> we have. > >> > >>I also would prefer a string containing the date. > >> > >>Björn > > > > +1. Maybe we could do both, first the date then the commits then > > the hash? > > Including a date would require more effort, because this format is not > supported by git, as far as I know. > > Support for the output of “git describe” would likely be much easier > to implement, but note that this might require missing features to be > implemented in guile-git. If that is easier to implement, sure. Björn pgp9HxzYmL70m.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
swedebugia writes: > "Björn Höfling" skrev: (29 december 2018 > 12:53:04 CET) >>On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100 >>Taylan Kammer wrote: >> >>> I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they >>> immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly >>> live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have. >> >>I also would prefer a string containing the date. >> >>Björn > > +1. Maybe we could do both, first the date then the commits then the hash? Including a date would require more effort, because this format is not supported by git, as far as I know. Support for the output of “git describe” would likely be much easier to implement, but note that this might require missing features to be implemented in guile-git. -- Ricardo
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
"Björn Höfling" skrev: (29 december 2018 12:53:04 CET) >On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100 >Taylan Kammer wrote: > >> I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they >> immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly >> live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have. > >I also would prefer a string containing the date. > >Björn +1. Maybe we could do both, first the date then the commits then the hash? -- Sent from my p≡p for Android. pEpkey.asc Description: application/pgp-keys
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100 Taylan Kammer wrote: > I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they > immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly > live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have. I also would prefer a string containing the date. Björn pgpP4aUcEglS4.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have. - Taylan On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 3:02 PM Marius Bakke wrote: > > swedebugia writes: > > > On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote: > >> Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported > >> by 'guix --version' as something like: > >> > >> 522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5 > >> > >> I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like: > >> > >> 2018-12-25-522d1b > >> > >> where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0. > >> > >> That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique. (The chances of > >> there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions > >> in the hash should be negligient.) > >> > >> The package name is currently something like: > >> > >> guix-522d1b87b > >> > >> That could become: > >> > >> guix-2018-12-25-522d1b > >> > >> which is a bit longer but more descriptive. > >> > >> I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult > >> it would be to implement these changes. > >> > >> Thoughts? Worth it? > > > > I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same. > > I like the "git describe" format: > > $ git describe > v0.16.0-414-ge99d036828 > > It does not mention a date, but it can be copy-pasted into "git" and > shows how many commits there were between each generation.
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
swedebugia writes: > On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote: >> Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported >> by 'guix --version' as something like: >> >> 522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5 >> >> I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like: >> >> 2018-12-25-522d1b >> >> where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0. >> >> That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique. (The chances of >> there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions >> in the hash should be negligient.) >> >> The package name is currently something like: >> >> guix-522d1b87b >> >> That could become: >> >> guix-2018-12-25-522d1b >> >> which is a bit longer but more descriptive. >> >> I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult >> it would be to implement these changes. >> >> Thoughts? Worth it? > > I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same. I like the "git describe" format: $ git describe v0.16.0-414-ge99d036828 It does not mention a date, but it can be copy-pasted into "git" and shows how many commits there were between each generation. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
Hello, swedebugia ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec. 25., K, 22:39): > > On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote: > > Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported > > by 'guix --version' as something like: > > > > 522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5 > > > > I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like: > > > > 2018-12-25-522d1b > > > > where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0. > > > > That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique. (The chances of > > there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions > > in the hash should be negligient.) > > > > The package name is currently something like: > > > > guix-522d1b87b > > > > That could become: > > > > guix-2018-12-25-522d1b > > > > which is a bit longer but more descriptive. > > > > I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult > > it would be to implement these changes. > > > > Thoughts? Worth it? > > I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same. > > -- > Cheers Swedebugia > What do you think about a git describe like output? This gives on current master: v0.16.0-362-g10275b746 this means the current branch is based on annotated tag v0.16.0, 362 commits are added on top, and the sort commit id is 10275b746. Best regards, g_bor
Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote: Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported by 'guix --version' as something like: 522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5 I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like: 2018-12-25-522d1b where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0. That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique. (The chances of there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions in the hash should be negligient.) The package name is currently something like: guix-522d1b87b That could become: guix-2018-12-25-522d1b which is a bit longer but more descriptive. I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult it would be to implement these changes. Thoughts? Worth it? I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same. -- Cheers Swedebugia
