Automatic tagging

[Roman Kennke]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 01.04.2008, 13:11 -0500 schrieb Matt Mackall:
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 13:01 -0500, Steve Borho wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 19:43 +0200, Andreas Axelsson wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Andreas Axelsson [mailto:andreas.axelsson at gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: den 1 april 2008 18:46
> > > > To: 'Roman Kennke'; 'Mercurial'
> > > > Subject: RE: Automatic tagging
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: mercurial-bounces at selenic.com [mailto:mercurial-
> > > > > bounces at selenic.com] On Behalf Of Roman Kennke
> > > > > Sent: den 1 april 2008 15:42
> > > > > To: Mercurial
> > > > > Subject: Automatic tagging
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, with Mercurial there is one problem. How can the autobuilder
> > > > > automatically tag the repository in a reliable way? I mean, it can
> > > > tag
> > > > > its cloned copy. But the tag needs to be pushed to the master
> > > > > repository. However, this will likely abort, and a merge will be
> > > > > needed.
> > > > 
> > > > Would pushing a tag actually require any merging? And if it does,
> > > > wouldn't it be the .hgtags file only anyway? That should be pretty easy
> > > > to auto-merge, or am I missing something. Or do you submit changes from
> > > > the autobuild?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Forget what I said, I tried it and it requires merging. I've not use Hg enough it seems.
> > 
> > At least with 1.0, you can write a special merge wrapper specifically
> > for .hgtags.  Such a script should probably get added to contrib/.  Any
> > takers?

Could that make merging .hgtags reliable and automatic enough for
automatic tagging?

> That may be a good idea.
> 
> But more generally, I think you'll find that having an automatic build
> engine doing tagging is going to be painful. You'll end up with a commit
> per build in your history with no good way of hiding it, long past when
> that information is interesting. Add a merge onto that, and it'll get
> really ugly.

I agree. This is how we did it with CVS, and we might have to find a
more HGish way of implementing it. Any suggestions are welcome.

> If the goal is just to publish a known-good build, why not simply have
> your build engine have a separate "builds" repo it pushes to whenever it
> succeeds?

Interesting idea. I will have to think about it.

Cheers, Roman

-- 
Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Roman Kennke, Software Engineer, http://kennke.org
aicas Allerton Interworks Computer Automated Systems GmbH
Haid-und-Neu-Straße 18 * D-76131 Karlsruhe * Germany
http://www.aicas.com   * Tel: +49-721-663 968-0
USt-Id: DE216375633, Handelsregister HRB 109481, AG Karlsruhe
Geschäftsführer: Dr. James J. Hunt