kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Nick Østergaard <oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

I don't see the patch anywhere. Please resend, I guess Joe only replied to you.

2015-09-13 19:51 GMT+02:00 Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>:
> @Nick,
>
> Where these the changes you were looking for?
>
> Wayne
>
> On 9/13/2015 12:50 AM, Joseph Chen wrote:
>>
>> @Wayne & @Nick,
>>
>> Attached you can find the new patch file that I've incorporated the
>> Nick's inputs.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Joe
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/2015 08:27 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> Joseph,
>>>
>>> Please make these changes and resubmit your patch and I will commit it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>> On 9/11/2015 10:19 AM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
>>>> Hi Joseph
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree with you and understand the reasoning. I was just not
>>>> able to see the file patched and only reviewed the patch file itself.
>>>> I have now tried to apply it.
>>>>
>>>> Some comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The line just before "# Get origin Repo HEAD" should probably be an
>>>> empth line to match the rest of the execute_process'.
>>>>
>>>> 2. We also create a long hash variable, although it is not used
>>>> anywhere else than for the cmake messaging, but we should probably me
>>>> explicit on which exact has that is. As is not that is a _LOCAL hash.
>>>> This to match the short hash.
>>>>
>>>> If you adjust those two points, I think it is fine to merge it.
>>>>
>>>> 2015-09-11 10:16 GMT+02:00 Joseph Chen <joseph.chen59@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> Hi Nick,
>>>>>
>>>>> I very much like the true BZR version number that is produced by
>>>>> your script
>>>>> when compiling from the git mirror source.  This is very helpful when
>>>>> tracking the matching version of KiCAD from the bzr repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the new way that I proposed for producing BZR version number, I
>>>>> pretty
>>>>> much borrowed the tick that is being used by Linux kernel: when a
>>>>> cloned
>>>>> local source tree is the same as the up stream's, the version string
>>>>> is like
>>>>> "3.2.1" as the official release number. But,  after some changes, the
>>>>> version string becomes "3.2.1-dirty-f6cd3", where "f6cd3" is the
>>>>> short hash
>>>>> of the local head.  This means that the version is not official
>>>>> release any
>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this trivial patch can help in distinguish a true BZR version
>>>>> from
>>>>> those with local modifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/10/2015 05:54 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a matter of what we really want. When I wrote the logic at
>>>>>> first, my goal was just to make sure to generate a bzr version that
>>>>>> matches how the bzr cmake module did it, when building with an
>>>>>> unmodified tree. I think my version complies to that; that is not
>>>>>> taking care about weather or not you are on a local banch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not tested this patch, but it looks alright to me. I am fine
>>>>>> with extending it with this detail, although one could argue that
>>>>>> holding the bzr rev as is, is not entirely correct, but if you get the
>>>>>> complete version string you can deduce that there are changes. For
>>>>>> example as you state the HEAD for the bzr number, you could also state
>>>>>> the HEAD and origin/HEAD for the bzr number, like, BZR 1234-1236 if
>>>>>> you have two commits in difference from the product branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am ok with either, but some people might find it odd as is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I think the patch is not complete, the auxilarry variables should
>>>>>> probably be of the last local commit. That is the variables like
>>>>>> _git_LAST_COMITTER and _git_LONG_HASH. (Maybe they are ok, hard to see
>>>>>> properly in the patch only, I did not apply it.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-09-10 17:15 GMT+02:00 Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>> @Nick, have you had a chance to look at this patch?  Since you wrote
>>>>>>> this I thought you should have some input.  I'm not sure if this the
>>>>>>> correct behavior when using git to generate the KiCad version string.
>>>>>>> It seems as though Joseph is correct.  Would you please take a
>>>>>>> look at
>>>>>>> it when you get a chance and let me know if it should be committed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/30/2015 4:24 PM, Joseph Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Please review and apply the attached patch file of
>>>>>>>> CreateGitVersion.cmake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Issue to be fixed: a False BZR version number**
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> The details:
>>>>>>>> After cloning the repo of git-source-mirror, and working in my
>>>>>>>> own local
>>>>>>>> branch, and committing a X times, the BZR version-number that is
>>>>>>>> generated by file CreateGitVersion.cmake is incremented by X number.
>>>>>>>> This is a mismatch of the true BZR number.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The tests:
>>>>>>>> _Before applying this patch_:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The command "Copy Version Info" built from the origin "master"
>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>> displays the following:
>>>>>>>>           Version: (2015-08-30 *BZR 6134, Git 4e94d52*)-product
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>> which is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _However_, after creating a local branch based off the "master"
>>>>>>>> branch,
>>>>>>>> and having committed 2 more times in the local branch, the
>>>>>>>> command "Copy
>>>>>>>> Version Info" built from the local branch displays the following
>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>> BZR number:
>>>>>>>>           Version: (2015-08-30 *BZR 6136, Git edfb32e*)-product
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>> which is _false_, because at the time the official BZR number is
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> *6134*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _After applying this_patch_:
>>>>>>>> The command "Copy Version Info" built from the "master" branch
>>>>>>>> displays
>>>>>>>> the following:
>>>>>>>>            Version: (2015-08-30 *BZR 6134, Git 4e94d52*)-product
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>> which is still correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, the command "Copy Version Info" built from the local branch
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> has 2 extra commits displayes the following:
>>>>>>>>           Version: (2015-08-30 *BZR 6134, Git
>>>>>>>> 4e94d52-ede23f9*)-product
>>>>>>>> release build
>>>>>>>> which is still correct with a _true_ *BZR 6134*, plus it has an
>>>>>>>> *added
>>>>>>>> GIT short hash* from the local branch HEAD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This added GIT short hash tells us that the running version is built
>>>>>>>> based off a true BZR 6134, plus some local modifications up to
>>>>>>>> GIT short
>>>>>>>> hash of *ede23f9.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>>>>>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>>>>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp