Maxima version and git describe and git workflow

On 2013-02-25, Raymond Toy <toy.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:

> In a recent message it was noted that the maxima version on the
> current master branch is something like 5.28.0_314.  This version
> comes from git describe which derives the version from the "closest"
> annotated tag.

Yeah. I did 'git push' but not 'git push --tags' so the 5.29 tags I
made weren't pushed. I've just now pushed tags so everybody should see
branch-5_29-base, 5.29.0, and 5.29.1.

I hate Git for stupid shit like this. Oh well.

> Since we've released 5.29.x, it would make more sense if the version
> were something like 5.29_nnn.

As it stands, and I don't see a reason to change this, releases are on
branches, so a tagged release is not the ancestor of the most
up-to-date commit on master. While I agree the version on master should
somehow mention 5.29, it shouldn't be 5.29_<something>. Currently Git
reports branch_5_29_base_<something> which is an accurate representation
of the situation.

> I'm not really familiar with the git workflow, but I think that for
> each release that is done, we should probably create (an annotated)
> tag it.  (I couldn't find any 5.29 tag.)

Yes, there are such tags. I forgot to push them. Sorry.

> We might also have to merge
> that tagged version back to master to keep things consistent.

I hope developers will carry out such merges since, to the best of my
knowledge, nobody is making sure anybody else's branch commits get
merged. Certainly I'm not.

best

Robert Dodier