I wasn't liking this at first too, but this wrong first impression goes away when you start to understand how GIT works and the advantages it has over SVN. SVN is much simpler, true, but GIT is, in it's own way, much more organized, as it allows better separation between branches and so they can like, test things and mess around, without having to worry, among other things.
Also, normal end users should use the stable version anyway.
So the thing now works by incrementing the revision number every time that a commit are made on the master branch (such as 3.0-47, 3.0-48, etc.)?
dephined: we talked to mamario before the switch, however whenever he updates his scripts is up to him (he was fine with the switch, he's just busy).
Jhonn: yes
Can anyone explain this?? Creep.
![[Image: 35l58ww.png]](http://i56.tinypic.com/35l58ww.png)
My computer was showing 4:56 PM at the time this pic was taken, my timezone is GMT-3...
Git uses the local timestamps of the committers and I fail at setting up my system clock.
Lols
I was starting to think GIT had a Time-Traveling feature
I've seen that built revision numbers are incremented only by the new master commit, but other previous commit of another branch (for example shadercache optimized) are included or not?
(08-26-2011, 11:07 PM)dephined Wrote: [ -> ]I've seen that built revision numbers are incremented only by the new master commit, but other previous commit of another branch (for example shadercache optimized) are included or not?
Not in the master (default) build.
So they're gonna stay on a dead rail forever?
I'm working on adapting the wiki to the new numbering format, and ran into a snag. We have a template that will link to a given build. Right now, that functionality is broken since the SVN revs are now gone.
Is there a way to...
- Search for an old svn-style rev with Google Code (like 6789)?
- Search for a git revision number in Google Code (like 3.0-60)?
I would rather not have to create/maintain basically a hard-coded key to link from the pretty rev/version to the git hash, but that may be our only option here. I'm hoping one of you has a better idea on how to correlate these.
Thanks!
-Keller