175 - Alpha packages named from git-describe, not from branch name


To the average user, that's going to appear to be an alpha version of v2.4.2.25 fact, it is AFTER that tag, and would be considered an alpha of x.x.x.26.  It would be much better to simply use the branch name: master-g922576d

It would probably be advisable to also keep a simple "master" alpha as well, that always points at the current head.

User When Change
Torhal Jul 23, 2013 at 23:47 UTC Changed status from Accepted to Declined
Torhal Nov 09, 2011 at 14:41 UTC Changed status from New to Accepted
Torhal Jun 03, 2011 at 16:58 UTC Changed assigned to from None to prencher
Ackis May 05, 2009 at 16:36 UTC Changed component from None to Component #18

You must login to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register to get one!

  • Avatar of Nevcairiel Nevcairiel Jul 28, 2008 at 19:56 UTC - 0 likes

    I agree with Dashkal, the naming is stupid. Don't use the last tag name at all in the alpha builds, imho.

  • Avatar of Dashkal Dashkal Jul 28, 2008 at 19:53 UTC - 0 likes

    I'd actually love to see that be configurable. Allow us to specify the template to use to generate the filename.

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Jul 28, 2008 at 15:55 UTC - 0 likes

    I quite prefer it the way it is now.



Last updated
Jul 23, 2013
May 25, 2008
Declined - We decided not to take action on this ticket.
Defect - A shortcoming, fault, or imperfection
Medium - Normal priority.

Reported by

Possible assignees