Replies: 5 comments 1 reply
-
but I am OK to put that in the git ...
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have no definitive opinion... But yes, indeed, a modified GDL_VERSION() seems inevitable. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
So perhaps, should we remove the "v" prefix when setting |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
here's a PR: #1780 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
OK, back on this versioning issue. I spend some time playing with git related commands on 3 computers,
But when I compile the up-to-date code, I have :
I see now way to move into a apparent 1.0.4 something ... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
It is smart that we have now an automatic increment of the versioning, and also some tags related to the git version ...
But I would like also that we follow a convention concerning the !gdl.release content, like X.Y.Z or X.Y.Z-git
with X, Y, Z are numbers between 0 and 99 ! (and my stupid code GDL_VERSION() can continue to work !)
Comments on that point are welcome ! Especially @GillesDuvert @slayoo
(please note that those fields are used since years in the benchmark 😄 )
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions