Hi,
I'd like to raise the question why do we need the full SHA1 for as the
build ID?
(See
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=b7e6c8459b15a4fdb9ebb269b27cdeea82c8c5c2
)
Using the abbreviated version looks weird enough for users, and I think the
full version won't add
On 11/26/2012 01:00 PM, Lior Kaplan wrote:
I'd like to raise the question why do we need the full SHA1 for as the
build ID?
(See
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=b7e6c8459b15a4fdb9ebb269b27cdeea82c8c5c2)
Using the abbreviated version looks weird enough for users, and I
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.comwrote:
On 11/26/2012 01:00 PM, Lior Kaplan wrote:
I'd like to raise the question why do we need the full SHA1 for as the
build ID?
(See
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/**libreoffice/core/commit/?id=**
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 04:26:12PM +0200, Lior Kaplan kaplanl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks, although I couldn't find the other commit (the first is
349fa28a5998d10b110da1a7fcc6b5b24d5940b1)
Yes, because the other (349fa28a95d40a49d579ea66b9b69720f0d85c5c) is a
tree, not a commit.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Miklos Vajna vmik...@suse.cz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 04:26:12PM +0200, Lior Kaplan
kaplanl...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, although I couldn't find the other commit (the first is
349fa28a5998d10b110da1a7fcc6b5b24d5940b1)
Yes, because the other