[PATCH v2] Print git describe output into the log file.

[Dan Nicholson]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:00:50AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Gaetan Nadon <memsize at videotron.ca> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 06:31 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> > It might be nicer, but could get messy when you consider all the corner
>> > cases.
>> >
>> > True, and the mess can be contained in a macro. Reusing the design for
>> > ChangeLog is worth a shot.
>> > Not to mention the script brings a mess of it's own in the build. It
>> > introduces multiple points of failure.
>> > Finding a home for the mess is not obvious.
>>
>> But the reason we put the ChangeLog mess in a macro is because it
>> would be used across all the modules. If it's only being used here,
>> then you might as well put it in the Makefile where it can be clean
>> instead of a shell variable that's substituted. Unless we think this
>> is going to be used in a lot places.
>
> I don't see why not.  People are going to copy it and/or patch it in
> anyway, and as with ChangeLog, it'll just get out of hand and we'll wish
> we'd have used a macro in the first place.

True. This is probably more me thinking a variable substituted from a
shell script is the wrong way to distribute this and wishing you could
install 3rd party automake rules.

--
Dan