[OpenWrt-Devel] SVN to GIT transition

Roman Yeryomin leroi.lists at gmail.com
Wed Oct 14 06:33:17 EDT 2015

On 14 October 2015 at 10:10, Felix Fietkau <nbd at openwrt.org> wrote:
> On 2015-10-13 10:45, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 13 October 2015 at 10:50, Bruno Randolf <br1 at einfach.org> wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2015 10:53 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>>>> git describe
>>>>> r-35387-g83c5a41
>>>>> If you prefer, cut the last part and get "r-35387".
>>>>> Looks familiar? Now you even have real linear numbering in each branch,
>>>>> without the gaps you get when committing to different branches in SVN +
>>>>> the unique hash. Need to look up the commit? Use the hash (g83c5a41).
>>>>> Of course "r" is just an example to show the familiarity with SVN
>>>>> revisions, you could choose whatever seems fit, for example at this
>>>>> moment it would make sense to tag the moment when 15.05 was branched off
>>>>> from trunk as "dd", then you'd get "dd-number-hash" in trunk and
>>>>> "15.05-66-g66620f5" in the 15.05 branch (you actually do, just need to
>>>>> use "git describe --tags" because the tag was not created with -a).
>>>> That looks quite interesting. The issue I see with that is if somebody
>>>> adds a local commit on top and builds the tree, the number behind 'r' is
>>>> misleading and the hash is useless.
>>> Right, I see, the ambiguous numbering with local commits may be a weak
>>> point. But then, if you don't find the hash in the OpenWRT git, you also
>>> know that it's not a clean copy of trunk and that's also valuable
>>> information. People should report bugs from clean trunk, not containing
>>> random, unknown, additional commits.
>> and then, again, if a user is able to commit something usually that
>> means he is able to understand that reporting his local changes
>> doesn't make sense.
> People report bugs all the time, and if I'm lucky enough to have a bug
> report containing revision information, I want to maximize the
> likelihood of that revision information being useful (even if there are
> some local commits on top of that).
> Any assumptions about users thinking carefully if the revision info that
> they're posting is meaningful enough is flawed. People usually just post
> whatever is in the banner file.
> Often bug reports can be anonymous, or reporters just don't respond
> after posting the ticket. I don't want to compromise any remaining
> usefulness of such tickets.

git describe origin is solving all your worries
Then you can add his local commit hash if there are any and dirty flag
to indicate if uncommited changes are present.
Much better than svn revision in all ways.

>> Though, I still think that appropriate, meaningful tags will be a
>> better option to just r (which would be just svn legacy).
>> Not sure but probably both options could be used in parallel.
> A fake 'r' value is useless if I can't use it to look up the
> corresponding OpenWrt commit.

see above

openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list