[sdcc-devel] [ sdcc-Feature Requests-976597 ] Build Number as part of version numbering

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Feature Requests item #976597, was opened at 2004-06-21 09:06
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by frief
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=976597&group_id=599

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Closed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: ganesh meenu (ganeshaadityan)
Assigned to: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld)
Summary: Build Number as part of version numbering

Initial Comment:
Hi All,
It'll be convenient if some sort of 'Build Number' is 
incorporated as part of the version number like 
2.4.2.1234 where 1243 is the build number which is 
increamented with every bulid. Bug reporting and 
support requests will be easier to handle this way.

Thanks in advance
Regards Ganesh


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Frieder Ferlemann (frief)
Date: 2004-06-26 18:04

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=589052

I like the idea of (additionally) using the cvs revision ID.
Actually it just tells: your SDCC is at least as new as
described in ChangeLog 761. But this is much better than
what we have now (__DATE__ sometimes pretending a more up to
date version).

There already is a tool for parsing cvs tags (should come
with cvs tools, so unfortunately won't be on all systems), try:
ident sdcc/doc/sdccman.lyx


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Vangelis Rokas (vrokas)
Date: 2004-06-26 16:31

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=770505

We could use the minor version number of ChangeLog as 
reported by CVS. For example, currently ChangeLog is 1.761.
During compiling a script would extract 761 and add it to 
SDCC version number, i.e. 2.4.2.761 (or even 2.4.2 build 761).
Also the tag $Id$ or better $Revision$ can be added in 
ChangeLog so version number is easier to parse.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Bernhard Held (bernhardheld)
Date: 2004-06-21 13:14

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=203539

We've already got something like a "build number": the build 
date. The date is not only more verbose than an abstract 
number, it's even much better suited for the way we work.

While it's not possible to export from cvs an old version of the 
source using a build number, you can export it using a date. 
The developers hardly download the snapshots to reproduce 
the bugs (there is no debugging information in the binaries). 
They have to build the binaries by themselves in order to test 
the fixes. An abstract build number wouldn't be of much help 
to identify the version of the relevant source.
Finally it's again the date, which is used in the ChangeLog to 
document the changes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=976597&group_id=599