Re: GIT tutorials (was: Re: Fix bug in GSM MAP, have problems with GIT)

[Graham Bloice <graham.bloice () trihedral com>]

On 11 March 2014 20:50, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Graham Bloice
> <graham.bloice () trihedral com> wrote:
> > On 11 March 2014 20:35, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Roland Knall <rknall () gmail com> wrote:
> > > > Git commit ids differ
> > > > between different people (each clone may create their one)
> > >
> > > Not technically true. If I make a commit with SHA x, push it, and it
> > > gets submitted, then it is true that the final SHA in master will be y
> > > != x. However, the next time I pull then I will get SHA y as well.
> > > They x and y technically reference different commits, since y contains
> > > additional information about who reviewed it, when it was submitted
> > > from Gerrit, etc.
> >
> > But aren't we talking about users, rather than devs?  Users will either
> > build from a clone from the main repo, or use an automated build, thus
> their
> > reference point will be the Gerrit | master SHA whichever is the most
> > appropriate name for it.
> >
> > In any case I don't think this fulfils the initial question.  Previously
> we
> > could say to users that an issue was fixed in svn r nnnn and they would
> > "know" that any rev later than that was good.  I don't understand how
> they
> > can "know" that with a SHA of the latest master commit | merge.
>
> SHAs aren't ordered like SVN revisions are (so given two arbitrary
> SHAs and nothing else I can't determine which came first) but they do
> still have an ordering in the repository.
>
> Regardless, we can say: fixed in commit SHA. They can pull, and if
> "git show SHA" shows the revision then they've got it. Otherwise they
> don't.
That doesn't help "users" who only install, not build as their copy of
Wireshark doesn't have a list of SHA (or does it?).

They only way I can think of resolving that is to refer to dates as they
are time-ordered (I hope).

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe