I like this idea ...
On May 22, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Anjo Krank wrote:
> Wouldn't is be easier to just take the svn repository version that
> was active when the build started?
>
> echo 2.0.0.`svn info|grep Revision|cut -d ' ' -f 2`
> >buildserver.version
>
> -->2.0.0.2709
>
> This would also make it clear which changes are included.
>
> Oh, and the ChangeLog script seems to be broken as the
> ChangeLog.txt file is empty.
>
> Cheers, Anjo
>
> Am 22.05.2006 um 16:04 schrieb Pierre Frisch:
>
>> Could I suggest that when we commit the buildserver.version file
>> we put the new build number in the comment. It would make browsing
>> the repository so much easier when looking for regressions.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>> On 20-May-06, at 2:01 AM, Ulrich K�ster wrote:
>>
>>> I'm for it. Increment the version number and commit it.
>>>
>>> Uli
>>> Am 19.05.2006 um 17:41 schrieb Mike Schrag:
>>>
>>>> Hmm .. the build server received code updates last night, but
>>>> buildserver.version did not update. There is some process over
>>>> on Ulrich's side that increments that number. For Wonder, my
>>>> server increments the number any time the build script is called
>>>> and there are any updates from CVS. I assume it's something
>>>> similar on their side. Is it easier/desirable/etc to have our
>>>> server increment that number like we do for wonder and just not
>>>> even check the number into svn?
>>>>
>>>> ms
>>>>
>>>> On May 19, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Pierre Frisch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How does the build number increments? Does it update every day
>>>>> for the nightly build? I think it was 129 yesterday and it is
>>>>> still 129 today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pierre
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon May 22 2006 - 13:07:16 EDT