On 08/10/2010 20:39, Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/10/2010 17:34, jhell wrote: >> I also meant to CC dougb_at_ on this as I believe he had something to do >> with the original commits of the git(1) portions and possibly other parts. > > I have specifically sworn off any further contact with that file. I have > no idea why screwing around with what should have been a simple thing > continues to hold such endless fascination for people, but I refuse to > dive back into that swamp. > I can respect that. I just find it to be of real use to be able to identify what is currently running on the system to what revisions were available at the time it was compiled whether it be local revisions or remote or mixed like what I have done with this patch. Personally I have drove off ideas of my own for a long time due to the long standing nature and background of newvers.sh because it is just a simple straight forward use that is needed from it. To complicate something as simple as this just seems fundamentally wrong in a lot of ways so I had to weigh the negatives and positives before I decided to submit this one. Regards & thanks for the good luck, -- jhell,vReceived on Tue Aug 10 2010 - 23:11:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:06 UTC