Bad svn workflow

Post any defects you find in the released or beta versions of the ImageMagick software here. Include the ImageMagick version, OS, and any command-line required to reproduce the problem. Got a patch for a bug? Post it here.
Post Reply
broucaries
Posts: 467
Joined: 2008-12-21T11:51:10-07:00

Bad svn workflow

Post by broucaries »

Hi,

A new once you publish some work after publishing version.

For instance in revision 5682 you modify version 6.7.3-2 whereas you have published it on changelog on revision 5675.

Please add a line about version on changelog only when you get this revision for the tar.gz

Thanks

bastien
User avatar
anthony
Posts: 8883
Joined: 2004-05-31T19:27:03-07:00
Authentication code: 8675308
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Bad svn workflow

Post by anthony »

The revisions in SVN is just the updates for development. Often a new addition is added, with changelog entry, but a small change is updated later, for example a debug statement is left behind and needed to be cleaned up.

The revision number is not that important. It is the version number that is the more important number, and it is the number stored into the changelog.
Anthony Thyssen -- Webmaster for ImageMagick Example Pages
https://imagemagick.org/Usage/
broucaries
Posts: 467
Joined: 2008-12-21T11:51:10-07:00

Re: Bad svn workflow

Post by broucaries »

Dear anthony,

i the debian case the workflow is really important. We want to be able to get patches from svn tree for fixing some issue (back port). Therefore we track svn tree

Therefore we will appreciate two thing:
- Please tag accordingly new version revision in changelog
- in version.h of tar.gz instead of external please put the svn revision used for generating the version, instead of external.

In will help us a lot instead to diff every svn revision in order to know where did you get the tar.gz.
User avatar
magick
Site Admin
Posts: 11064
Joined: 2003-05-31T11:32:55-07:00

Re: Bad svn workflow

Post by magick »

Ok. We'll implement these changes by sometime tomorrow. Thanks.
in version.h of tar.gz instead of external please put the svn revision used for generating the version, instead of external.
We use the first number returned by svnversion when ImageMagick is built. Are you looking for the second or some other value?
broucaries
Posts: 467
Joined: 2008-12-21T11:51:10-07:00

Re: Bad svn workflow

Post by broucaries »

I do not know but in your ImageMagick-6.7.3-2.tar.gz they are :
#define MagickSVNRevision "exported"
that is not useful

In revision 5722 they are in version.h
#define MagickSVNRevision "5709"

Not accurate but better

Bastien
User avatar
magick
Site Admin
Posts: 11064
Joined: 2003-05-31T11:32:55-07:00

Re: Bad svn workflow

Post by magick »

Ok, we need to lock the SVN revision at build time. Currently its on demand and svnversion returns "exported" if configure is not in a SVN working copy. Thanks.
broucaries
Posts: 467
Joined: 2008-12-21T11:51:10-07:00

Re: Bad svn workflow

Post by broucaries »

You tag in changelog commit 5721 but this commit is outside a svn branch
(http://trac.imagemagick.org/changeset/5721)

For me it is revision 5718

Thanks

Bastien
User avatar
anthony
Posts: 8883
Joined: 2004-05-31T19:27:03-07:00
Authentication code: 8675308
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Bad svn workflow

Post by anthony »

I added that.

I feel that keeping a history of the SVN number being used for the release in the ChangeLog would also be a good idea.
I have found a need for that number at times.

Apologies for getting that wrong. magick (cristy) is the one that actually does the release.


Cristy.... ImageMagick-6.7.3-3 in the SVN does not generate RPM's as the version number is incorrect in the "configure" script. My "autoconf" is not high enough to re-build that file, but a hand update of version numbers fixed it for me.
Anthony Thyssen -- Webmaster for ImageMagick Example Pages
https://imagemagick.org/Usage/
Post Reply