tobias at grosser.es
Thu Jul 21 05:18:43 PDT 2011
On 07/21/2011 01:44 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:26:29PM +0100, Jay Foad wrote:
>> On 21 July 2011 11:50, Joerg Sonnenberger<joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote:
>>> There is still the major regression with unreadable version numbers.
>>> Given the amount of Bugzilla traffic with "Fixed in...", that's a
>>> non-trivial issue.
>> I wouldn't call that a major regression. For informal use you can
>> quote 8 hex digits of the git commit name, which isn't *much* worse
>> than a 6 digit decimal number. For more rigour, you can use a link to
>> the llvm-commits message in the archive (people already frequently do
>> this) or to the vcs-web interface.
> The problem is answering the question of "do I have it or not". Linear
> version numbers are much nicer for that.
Sure. So there will never be any way to get linear version numbers with
git. The only way to understand if you have a revision is in your
repository is to check with
$ git log <hash>
$ git log
and search for <hash>
If you do not have a repository, you need to guess based on the time of
commit and checkout or you need to use a web interface to the repository.
I personally never missed the linear numbers. Using git to work with
projects like cloog, isl, pluto, Polly, LLVM and clang I got
used to search all the time in the history (as it is readily available
even for offline use and it is extremely fast). As a result, looking up
version numbers easily integrated into my work flow.
Did you try to work with git and are you convinced this is a show
stopper for you? Or are you looking for specific solutions beyond the
ones I have suggested?
More information about the llvm-dev