[mythtv-users] [mythtv] ANNOUNCEMENT: MythTV is moving to Github
mythtv-users at westbrook.com
Sat Dec 4 09:51:27 UTC 2010
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 02:26, Raymond Wagner <raymond at wagnerrp.com> wrote:
> Github provides the same capability, but you have to use the git commit
> hash. For example, the latest commit against master is
> 42a3c6f4c65c40b9dcd73272f23bfac379caf2a5, so to pull that from github, you
> would use...
> If you prefer, you can also get 'zipball' instead. The only difference is
> that this will pull the entire repository, and will place it in
> Where tree would be the first seven characters of the hash, or '42a3c6f'.
> You will have to navigate down to the directory you want to use.
Thanks Raymond, I hadn't found that yet, and that's perfect. :)
So, when speaking in conversation about a specific version, for example on
the list and such, then, will we be using that short version of the hash?
e.g. "tested against 42a36f"?
For me (and perhaps others), the downsides of referring to builds with a
hash, say something like "0.24.42a36f" are (a) my packaging system (Gentoo's
portage) doesn't like letters in version numbers, and (b) hashes aren't
lexicographically ordered with maturity, to my knowledge (I'd be happily
wrong if corrected on that). For example, the package manager might be
wrong in thinking that version (commit) "37beef" is older than "a8dead", so
a commit hash wouldn't be interoperable here as a "revision number".
I suppose the "git" way would be to tediously give every merge commit on the
fixes/0.24 branch a numerically increasing tag for easy reference, but I
haven't heard mention of any plans to do that. I could do it locally, but
that would be meaningless to the rest of the world.
Any thoughts gratefully welcomed!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mythtv-users