(08-21-2011, 11:47 AM)keller999 Wrote: [ -> ]Any chance you can make this be the revision that shows up in the statusbar for Dolphin? Right now, it's the extra-long hex number, which is not only difficult to type into a testing report, but is also impossible to copy and paste. And while it may be easy to lookup the revision using a tool, I don't see how the wiki will be able to look it up for templates.
We're working on these kind of things already, give us some time.
We obviously can't fix stuff if the repository itself isn't accessible
(08-21-2011, 11:53 AM)neobrain Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2011, 11:47 AM)keller999 Wrote: [ -> ]Any chance you can make this be the revision that shows up in the statusbar for Dolphin? Right now, it's the extra-long hex number, which is not only difficult to type into a testing report, but is also impossible to copy and paste. And while it may be easy to lookup the revision using a tool, I don't see how the wiki will be able to look it up for templates.
We're working on these kind of things already, give us some time.
We obviously can't fix stuff if the repository itself isn't accessible
No problem, sorry to bug you on it. From the tone of the original post and followups, it seemed like the traditional rev number system that the wiki relies on was being tossed, which would cause us major issues. Glad to hear that it will be back!
As far as I understood it, it will only "come back" for revisions until the git switch. Revisions after that will only have git hashes and that 3.0-45 format.
(08-21-2011, 12:10 PM)neobrain Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I understood it, it will only "come back" for revisions until the git switch. Revisions after that will only have git hashes and that 3.0-45 format.
In that case, what do you think about my above proposal? Some way for users to track revisions sequentially, as well as a numbering system that preferrably lines up with the SVN version numbers? Otherwise, I do not know if the Compatibility wiki will be able to track revs outside of releases without a considerable amout of rework.
I think the problem is not the what the tool to use on this time ............ too?
The problem should be the method way of doing things. That is not only just the "coder" using the Code Page. That can't be "I do it because i want it!!!" just like the break plugin or core unit before.
And that not mean they are the end-user when they written some thing in the forum or the code page. They just not coder. The end-user of windows should be the child on the school or the guy on the shop, not the guy on the MSDN. They should be also think about the need out of the coder if they hope them give a help for coder.
with tfs, you won't find this problem at all. you will enjoy all the abilities of svn and git.
(08-21-2011, 12:32 PM)keller999 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2011, 12:10 PM)neobrain Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I understood it, it will only "come back" for revisions until the git switch. Revisions after that will only have git hashes and that 3.0-45 format.
In that case, what do you think about my above proposal? Some way for users to track revisions sequentially, as well as a numbering system that preferrably lines up with the SVN version numbers? Otherwise, I do not know if the Compatibility wiki will be able to track revs outside of releases without a considerable amout of rework.
I don't like the idea, since especially when using branching more often (which we WILL do), people will get confused even more with sequential numbering.
And if you then say that we should just number the master brancher sequentially, we end up having the same "issue" like with git hashes - no way to compare two commits by date, since branches are where the main development will happen.
I like the idea of using GIT. While it's very obvious that it still needs work, eventually people will get used to it with time.
The only thing I believe wasn't asked in this topic but I'm sure is being worked on are the revision numbers that are referenced in pregit issue reports that are also automatically hotlinks to the change. Right now all issue pages mention revision numbers like r####, but when clicking on the link of the revision it will now forward to a 404 page. I don't know if this is one of the things that are upcoming, but would it be possible to click on the link of a revision and have it forward to the page equivalent hash?
Like for example:
This issue references R7715:
http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/issues/detail?id=4796
However when you click the hotlink for R7715 it'll forward to a 404 page:
http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/source/detail?r=7715
What should happen is if you click on the link to R7715, it should forward to the page of the equivalent hash automatically:
http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/source/detail?r=*hash*
I'm pretty sure you have a solution for this already in store, but I wanted to bring it up just in case since it wasn't already mentioned in this topic yet (I think).
There is no way for us to do that forwarding, it is controlled by google.