Tagging master

[Alexander Amelkin]

22.08.2018 17:12, Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 23:37, Patrick Venture <venture at google.com> wrote:
>>>> So this would be a non-versioned tag?  I believe we already have
>>>> versions that are meant to track behind or with yocto (once the
>>>> release schedule hits).  Since these aren't tested, I'd suggest they
>>>> do have a naming scheme based on version, with may date in the tag and
>>>> some indication that it's not stable.
>>> I don't follow. I was proposing we continue with the existing scheme,
>>> so the tag for today would be v2.4.
>>> ...
>>> products out of it. I think a tag in the git repo can exist in
>>> parallel without taking value away from the broader release branding.
>>>
>>> Please help me out if I've missed something here.
Please note that if you add any tags to master, they WILL break versioning in the software.
That is, at least IPMI `mc info` will get broken as phosphor-host-ipmid won't be able to parse a non-standard VERSION generated from a non-standard tag. It has a very limited set of supported tag formats (actually, just one).

And I don't understand what would be the profit, provided that `git describe` already gives a pretty human-friendly description like `v2.3-592-g28cd22e`, that contains simultaneously the base version tag, the number of commit since that, and an abbreviated hash. Pretty descriptive and friendly (unlike bare hash), IMO.

Alexander.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20180822/2268b439/attachment.sig>