297 all good.

297 all good.

[Ray Andrews]

All fixed in '297
(BTW I trust eg: '297' is a unique ID for each build?)

Re: 297 all good.

[Bart Schaefer]

On Feb 12,  5:27pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
} (BTW I trust eg: '297' is a unique ID for each build?)

Sort of.  It's the number of commits since some flag point (the 5.0.7
release, in this case).  So it'll be unique until after the next such
flag point (probably 5.0.8).

Re: 297 all good.

[Mikael Magnusson]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Bart Schaefer
<schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12,  5:27pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> } (BTW I trust eg: '297' is a unique ID for each build?)
>
> Sort of.  It's the number of commits since some flag point (the 5.0.7
> release, in this case).  So it'll be unique until after the next such
> flag point (probably 5.0.8).

This also assumes you don't have any local commits. The actually
unique identifier for the commit comes after the g at the end. (It's
just the first few digits of the commit hash).

-- 
Mikael Magnusson

Re: 297 all good.

[Ray Andrews]

On 02/12/2015 08:09 PM, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Bart Schaefer
> <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12,  5:27pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
>> } (BTW I trust eg: '297' is a unique ID for each build?)
>>
>> Sort of.  It's the number of commits since some flag point (the 5.0.7
>> release, in this case).  So it'll be unique until after the next such
>> flag point (probably 5.0.8).
> This also assumes you don't have any local commits. The actually
> unique identifier for the commit comes after the g at the end. (It's
> just the first few digits of the commit hash).
>
Ok, good to know, I'm just looking for the briefest effective way of 
referring to this build or that build. The 'commitnumber' is nicely 
sequential and simple, so that should do unless I hear different.

Re: 297 all good.

[Daniel Shahaf]

Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 20:50:37 -0800:
> On 02/12/2015 08:09 PM, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Bart Schaefer
> ><schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> >>On Feb 12,  5:27pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> >>} (BTW I trust eg: '297' is a unique ID for each build?)
> >>
> >>Sort of.  It's the number of commits since some flag point (the 5.0.7
> >>release, in this case).  So it'll be unique until after the next such
> >>flag point (probably 5.0.8).
> >This also assumes you don't have any local commits. The actually
> >unique identifier for the commit comes after the g at the end. (It's
> >just the first few digits of the commit hash).
> >
> Ok, good to know, I'm just looking for the briefest effective way of
> referring to this build or that build. The 'commitnumber' is nicely
> sequential and simple, so that should do unless I hear different.

Please don't report bare numbers.  Converting a number like '297' to a
form git understands is ambiguous and a little work.  Instead, report a
revision hash, an X-Seq number (in the commit message), or the value of
$ZSH_PATCHLEVEL.

The X-Seq number is unambiguous even if you have local commits on that
branch that aren't upstream.

Thanks,

Daniel

Re: 297 all good.

[Ray Andrews]

On 02/13/2015 02:33 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Please don't report bare numbers. Converting a number like '297' to a 
> form git understands is ambiguous and a little work. Instead, report a 
> revision hash, an X-Seq number (in the commit message), or the value 
> of $ZSH_PATCHLEVEL. The X-Seq number is unambiguous even if you have 
> local commits on that branch that aren't upstream. Thanks, Daniel 

Ok.

Re: 297 all good.

[Axel Beckert]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 05:09:53AM +0100, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Bart Schaefer
> <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12,  5:27pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> > } (BTW I trust eg: '297' is a unique ID for each build?)
> >
> > Sort of.  It's the number of commits since some flag point (the 5.0.7
> > release, in this case).  So it'll be unique until after the next such
> > flag point (probably 5.0.8).
> 
> This also assumes you don't have any local commits. The actually
> unique identifier for the commit comes after the g at the end. (It's
> just the first few digits of the commit hash).

JFTR: The according git command to get the ID we're talking about is
"git describe --tags":

~/zsh/zsh-upstream → git describe --tags
zsh-5.0.7-297-g7e6faf7
~/zsh/zsh-upstream → 

		Kind regards, Axel
-- 
/~\  Plain Text Ribbon Campaign                   | Axel Beckert
\ /  Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News            | abe@deuxchevaux.org  (Mail)
 X   See http://www.nonhtmlmail.org/campaign.html | abe@noone.org (Mail+Jabber)
/ \  I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://abe.noone.org/ (Web)

Re: 297 all good.

[Peter Stephenson]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:58:56 +0100
Axel Beckert <abe@deuxchevaux.org> wrote:
> JFTR: The according git command to get the ID we're talking about is
> "git describe --tags":
> 
> ~/zsh/zsh-upstream → git describe --tags
> zsh-5.0.7-297-g7e6faf7
> ~/zsh/zsh-upstream → 

It's also available in $ZSH_PATCHLEVEL --- the unambiguous thing to do
is report that.  (It's dependent on the same info, though, so
still subject to local changes.)

pws