From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu May 17 06:46:16 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DB4ED6ACA for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 06:46:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mjguzik@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qk0-x243.google.com (mail-qk0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 950D76EF94 for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 06:46:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mjguzik@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qk0-x243.google.com with SMTP id b39-v6so2768453qkb.5 for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:46:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k6qlBEy3PifYxHmv7rTfdkmtjvwjtSynZYCDnKZ1Uk4=; b=q7GgaAlvgsz38cDGwCvW4JnAHQZk9BfajVh8bA3JhU/cjQx/TlSScbJHI3hOELcHTl Mq67OSLoIC46PGgKnJFEhEUTnjZ59GDyJbrGbS4YV2BjGsQAIOzc7jmRJH00bnnYPt9T pMh1RTMDh6w97KsAzSqEQ3oh60/vTiH6bhLRnn++/6Po7uNpevewHwNjJQZc2TXVJ8CQ 6cb/WuJtnOtWlDRoRWPDEcdDCvrD8UwTalW+bA9ceqE6oBJhkrzqYtm84aMD4asfWemE FVJutY3PqYu0ArIGZxPAXec5UzYZwgwQAuCB43QFkV7Jnr6ssjZKektsT7FJOusO5V/p LBnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k6qlBEy3PifYxHmv7rTfdkmtjvwjtSynZYCDnKZ1Uk4=; b=XvcwEt5z/Q4mMBjaSTLP90nD7EvhxGEBbxgSSdxgGo15MoR22kZlKXNkf9bG6RXIBF Cutv8N48z7amWBfW2a8ygNofeT77h7/ZgaeClB7Lk/6e5tn3lfJYC0twh+kwf5530Rkd ZNOHQb4wDYnzry2Io50j8tvS0a7CkJbk8pNN28NGODARF4IQm7rE7C1XgH0fKgPLKPBy eVG+8AUv4Xp/dOo103mvA9af2CN/8WcP88lbRLAKHkXbFOsLVGMCaMDkBYEpkY2LPxdv RJPcl+qn/aQGTSicEt7CGs7zHaSXpImTkmof3RCFEZR8su/NcO9rj1npTUfYw1sR4oPd z4ZA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweoexCEaVlgYBrv/BFhs3OgYOcNVm8cgKMSMH7Q30ISAdSWsRPh uoy7jgrbYj/aLaDwHvMKLSDuvyyRdszybnEMqzc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoxqsSfBrma/lGrIJ62Xq/WVeD6sJNHaUGLE+puiRB1PVsxWsYCrdgmSV/20LWj8xnrKuZPx8/8KUlwYwfscbE= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:f40c:: with SMTP id y12-v6mr3712361qkl.311.1526539575247; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:46:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.200.28.74 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:46:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Mateusz Guzik Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 08:46:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: including a checksum of the diff in uname To: Eitan Adler Cc: FreeBSD Hackers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.26 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 06:46:16 -0000 On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 12 May 2018 at 19:50, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Eitan Adler > wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I often have several variants of the same revision that I'm testing or > >> working on at any given time. > >> > >> What do you y'all think of something like this: > >> > >> Index: sys/conf/newvers.sh > >> =================================================================== > >> --- sys/conf/newvers.sh (revision 333575) > >> +++ sys/conf/newvers.sh (working copy) > >> @@ -203,6 +203,8 @@ if [ -n "$svnversion" ] ; then > >> [0-9]*[MSP]|*:*) > >> svn=" r${svn}" > >> modified=true > >> + ck="$(svn diff | cksum | cut -w -f 1)" > >> + svn="$svn-$ck" > >> ;; > >> [0-9]*) > >> svn=" r${svn}" > >> > >> to help differentiate. > >> > >> You end up with a version that looks like: r333575M-4294967295? > >> > > > > Don't develop with svn. get yourself a git or hg setup and a tmp branch. > > The branch name is always included along with the commit hash. > > That makes sense, and I might do that in the future. In the past > adding files was more painful with git, though I'm told this is no > longer the case. > > In any case, is there any reason not to add the above patch? > > I don't see any added value of doing so. So far it just looks like patching up a deficient development process. -- Mateusz Guzik