Better names for Guix versions from git?

Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Taylan Kammer]

Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported
by 'guix --version' as something like:

    522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5

I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like:

    2018-12-25-522d1b

where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0.

That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique.  (The chances of
there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions
in the hash should be negligient.)

The package name is currently something like:

    guix-522d1b87b

That could become:

    guix-2018-12-25-522d1b

which is a bit longer but more descriptive.

I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult
it would be to implement these changes.

Thoughts?  Worth it?


Taylan

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[swedebugia]

On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote:
> Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported
> by 'guix --version' as something like:
> 
>      522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5
> 
> I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like:
> 
>      2018-12-25-522d1b
> 
> where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0.
> 
> That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique.  (The chances of
> there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions
> in the hash should be negligient.)
> 
> The package name is currently something like:
> 
>      guix-522d1b87b
> 
> That could become:
> 
>      guix-2018-12-25-522d1b
> 
> which is a bit longer but more descriptive.
> 
> I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult
> it would be to implement these changes.
> 
> Thoughts?  Worth it?

I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same.

-- 
Cheers Swedebugia

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Gábor Boskovits]

Hello,

swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec. 25., K, 22:39):
>
> On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote:
> > Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported
> > by 'guix --version' as something like:
> >
> >      522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5
> >
> > I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like:
> >
> >      2018-12-25-522d1b
> >
> > where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0.
> >
> > That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique.  (The chances of
> > there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions
> > in the hash should be negligient.)
> >
> > The package name is currently something like:
> >
> >      guix-522d1b87b
> >
> > That could become:
> >
> >      guix-2018-12-25-522d1b
> >
> > which is a bit longer but more descriptive.
> >
> > I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult
> > it would be to implement these changes.
> >
> > Thoughts?  Worth it?
>
> I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same.
>
> --
> Cheers Swedebugia
>

What do you think about a git describe like output?
This gives on current master: v0.16.0-362-g10275b746
this means the current branch is based on annotated tag
v0.16.0, 362 commits are added on top, and
the sort commit id is 10275b746.

Best regards,
g_bor

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1287 bytes --]

swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net> writes:

> On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote:
>> Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported
>> by 'guix --version' as something like:
>> 
>>      522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5
>> 
>> I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like:
>> 
>>      2018-12-25-522d1b
>> 
>> where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0.
>> 
>> That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique.  (The chances of
>> there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions
>> in the hash should be negligient.)
>> 
>> The package name is currently something like:
>> 
>>      guix-522d1b87b
>> 
>> That could become:
>> 
>>      guix-2018-12-25-522d1b
>> 
>> which is a bit longer but more descriptive.
>> 
>> I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult
>> it would be to implement these changes.
>> 
>> Thoughts?  Worth it?
>
> I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same.

I like the "git describe" format:

$ git describe
v0.16.0-414-ge99d036828

It does not mention a date, but it can be copy-pasted into "git" and
shows how many commits there were between each generation.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Taylan Kammer]

I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they
immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly
live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have.

- Taylan

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 3:02 PM Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> wrote:
>
> swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net> writes:
>
> > On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote:
> >> Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported
> >> by 'guix --version' as something like:
> >>
> >>      522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5
> >>
> >> I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like:
> >>
> >>      2018-12-25-522d1b
> >>
> >> where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0.
> >>
> >> That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique.  (The chances of
> >> there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions
> >> in the hash should be negligient.)
> >>
> >> The package name is currently something like:
> >>
> >>      guix-522d1b87b
> >>
> >> That could become:
> >>
> >>      guix-2018-12-25-522d1b
> >>
> >> which is a bit longer but more descriptive.
> >>
> >> I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult
> >> it would be to implement these changes.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?  Worth it?
> >
> > I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same.
>
> I like the "git describe" format:
>
> $ git describe
> v0.16.0-414-ge99d036828
>
> It does not mention a date, but it can be copy-pasted into "git" and
> shows how many commits there were between each generation.

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Björn Höfling]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 354 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100
Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> wrote:

> I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they
> immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly
> live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have.

I also would prefer a string containing the date.

Björn

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[swedebugia]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/html, Size: 998 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

"Björn Höfling" <bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de> skrev: (29 december 2018 12:53:04 CET)
>On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100
>Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they
>> immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly
>> live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have.
>
>I also would prefer a string containing the date.
>
>Björn

+1. Maybe we could do both, first the date then the commits then the hash?
-- 
Sent from my p≡p for Android.

[-- Attachment #2: pEpkey.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3825 bytes --]

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Ricardo Wurmus]

swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net> writes:

> "Björn Höfling" <bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de> skrev: (29 december 2018 12:53:04 CET)
>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100
>>Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they
>>> immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly
>>> live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have.
>>
>>I also would prefer a string containing the date.
>>
>>Björn
>
> +1. Maybe we could do both, first the date then the commits then the hash?

Including a date would require more effort, because this format is not
supported by git, as far as I know.

Support for the output of “git describe” would likely be much easier to
implement, but note that this might require missing features to be
implemented in guile-git.

--
Ricardo

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Björn Höfling]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1088 bytes --]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:50:11 +0100
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net> writes:
> 
> > "Björn Höfling" <bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de> skrev: (29
> > december 2018 12:53:04 CET)  
> >>On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100
> >>Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they
> >>> immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can
> >>> certainly live with that format too. Definitely better than what
> >>> we have.  
> >>
> >>I also would prefer a string containing the date.
> >>
> >>Björn  
> >
> > +1. Maybe we could do both, first the date then the commits then
> > the hash?  
> 
> Including a date would require more effort, because this format is not
> supported by git, as far as I know.
> 
> Support for the output of “git describe” would likely be much easier
> to implement, but note that this might require missing features to be
> implemented in guile-git.

If that is easier to implement, sure.

Björn


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Vagrant Cascadian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2151 bytes --]

On 2018-12-26, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec. 25., K, 22:39):
>> On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote:
>> > Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported
>> > by 'guix --version' as something like:
>> >
>> >      522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5
>> >
>> > I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like:
>> >
>> >      2018-12-25-522d1b
>> >
>> > where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0.

The problem with dates from git commits is that git makes no attempt to
keep commits in cronological order, and timezone adds interesting issues
to the mix. For example:

$ git log c180017b6f7e9b6d23238c1fbaac986c435cd35e | head -n 50 | grep
-E ^'commit|Date'
commit c180017b6f7e9b6d23238c1fbaac986c435cd35e
Date:   Tue Dec 25 16:29:12 2018 +0200
commit 039ccc7118b0a6d0cb09e9cab5caf9f629197d03
Date:   Tue Nov 20 17:46:24 2018 +0100
commit 5923102f7b58f0a0120926ec5b81ed48b26a188e
Date:   Thu Dec 27 11:54:55 2018 +0100
commit ad3c9fbbb9fbc1080c9205d991960494ebe22586
Date:   Thu Dec 27 11:53:14 2018 +0100
commit 912f44005dfbf0855d1e5bbc633094bc9456e80b
Date:   Thu Dec 27 09:46:40 2018 +0100


The most recent commit is from the 25th of December, Followed by the
20th of November, followed by several commits from December 27th...

So while I agree that it would be nice to have a date in the version,
I'm not sure where you would pull a meaningful date from.


> What do you think about a git describe like output?
> This gives on current master: v0.16.0-362-g10275b746
> this means the current branch is based on annotated tag
> v0.16.0, 362 commits are added on top, and
> the sort commit id is 10275b746.

Showing the relative version compared to the last tagged version makes a
lot of sense to me! It's done in a way that, at least within a specific
branch (presuming no rebases), the versions can be trivially compared to
know which is the most current.


I'd been meaning to ask about this very topic, thanks for bringing it
up!


live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Hartmut Goebel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1657 bytes --]

Am 30.12.18 um 03:48 schrieb Vagrant Cascadian:
> The problem with dates from git commits is that git makes no attempt to
> keep commits in cronological order, and timezone adds interesting issues
> to the mix. For example:

Though *author* dates might not be in cronological order, *commit* dates
are (as long as none is playing with the graph), see below.

Anyway, we are interested in the *commit*-date, thus git need to be told
do show this one:

$ git log -n 1 --format=format:"%h %ci"
402c36c1d 2018-12-30 17:05:27 -0500


$git log -n 5 --format=format:"Author:    %ai %an%nCommitter: %ci
%cn%n%n" c180017b6f7e9b6d23238c1fbaac986c435cd35e

Author:    2018-12-25 16:29:12 +0200 Efraim Flashner
Committer: 2018-12-27 14:55:54 +0200 Efraim Flashner
Author:    2018-11-20 17:46:24 +0100 Pierre-Antoine Rouby
Committer: 2018-12-27 12:08:25 +0100 Ludovic Courtès
Author:    2018-12-27 11:54:55 +0100 Ludovic Courtès
Committer: 2018-12-27 12:08:25 +0100 Ludovic Courtès
Author:    2018-12-27 11:53:14 +0100 Ludovic Courtès
Committer: 2018-12-27 12:08:25 +0100 Ludovic Courtès
Author:    2018-12-27 09:46:40 +0100 Julien Lepiller
Committer: 2018-12-27 09:47:22 +0100 Julien Lepiller


-- 
Schönen Gruß
Hartmut Goebel
Dipl.-Informatiker (univ), CISSP, CSSLP, ISO 27001 Lead Implementer
Information Security Management, Security Governance, Secure Software
Development

Goebel Consult, Landshut
http://www.goebel-consult.de

Blog: https://www.goe-con.de/blog/35.000-gegen-vorratdatenspeicherung
Kolumne:
https://www.goe-con.de/hartmut-goebel/cissp-gefluester/2010-09-mut-zur-beschraenkung



[-- Attachment #2: 0x7B752811BF773B65.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 16795 bytes --]

Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> skribis:

> I like the "git describe" format:
>
> $ git describe
> v0.16.0-414-ge99d036828

I’d love that.  We just need to add the missing bindings to Guile-Git.
Hint hint.  ;-)

As for the date, note that ‘guix describe’ displays the generation’s
date already.

Thanks,
Ludo’.