[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: git2cl

> There is no reason to have +git200808271242 in the upstream version
> number since you are packaging a tagged version. I would suggest using
> `git describe | sed s/git2cl-//` to get a useful version number. This
> works nicely even when you are packaging a non-tagged version.

Thanks for handy advice. It may be nice to use tags for versioning, 
but I'd like to keep translated-to-date version because it is human-readable 
and meaningful. 
"2.0" doesn't say much and I'm not sure what to do if minor update to upstream 
repository will not be tagged. 

Shall we keep version with date please?
Of course I'll change it as advised if you insist.

> Please comment out DH_VERBOSE in debian/rules.


> Please add a debian/watch file explaining that upstream does not
> release tarballs and that the gitweb server used does not have the
> ability to export tarballs.


> How about running git2cl in the get-orig-source target to generate an
> upstream ChangeLog from the git history? :)

This is awesome idea, I like it! :)

I incorporated it into updated release available from same sources (git repo 
and mentor's URL)


Reply to: