Re: nightly tarballs of git

From: Dave Jones <>
Date: 2006-09-15 05:36:16
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
 > Dave Jones <> writes:
 > > The original clone of the repo was just a straight clone of git://
 > When the build procesure assigns the version to the generated
 > git binary, it does these checks and takes the first one:
 >  - Run "git describe" at the top of the source tree.  If it
 >    returns some version (not an error message), use it.  This
 >    case should not apply here since we are talking about a
 >    tarball of a working tree, and it does not have a repository.

On the server this is running on, the returns v1.3.3-g7f7e6ea

 >  - See if 'version' file exists at the top of the source tree,
 >    and uses what is recorded there.  This file is placed in the
 >    resulting tarball by the "make dist" target of the toplevel
 >    Makefile.
 >  - Otherwise use DEF_VER hardcoded in GIT-VERSION-GEN script.
 >    The 1.4.2 series is shipped with DEF_VER set to v1.4.2.GIT,
 >    so this does not explain why Nashanth sees "1.3.GIT" (or
 >    "v1.3.GIT", if the original report did not copy it right).
 > I just snarfed your snapshot tarball from a few days ago, and I
 > do not see any version file there (which indicates that it is
 > not a product of "make dist").  Interestingly enough DEF_VER is
 > set to v1.3.GIT in GIT-VERSION-GEN.  This line was changed from
 > v1.3.GIT to v1.4.GIT with commit 41292dd on June 10th and then
 > updated to v1.4.2.GIT with commit 5a71682 on August 3rd.
 > So a short conclusion is that the directory you are tarring up
 > does not have snapshot of my tree.
 > I would like to understand why.  If an automated 'pull' is
 > failing, that is somewhat worrysome, because I presume you do
 > not do any development of your own in your snapshot directory
 > and in that case everything should fast forward.  Even if 'pull'
 > failed somehow, if it is not reporting its failure, it is even
 > more worrysome.

I don't recall ever having done anything at all in the dir that
is being snapshotted. So the only thing that should be happening
is the side-effects of the script.  Here it is in its entirity..

DATE=`date +%Y-%m-%d`

cd ~/git-trees
if [ -d $PROJ ]; then
  cd $PROJ
  git pull -n
  git clone -q git://
  cd $PROJ
snap=git-snapshot-$(date +"%Y%m%d")
git-tar-tree HEAD $snap | gzip -9 > $PROJ-$DATE.tar.gz
mv $PROJ-$DATE.tar.gz ~/sites/$PROJ/
rm -f ~/sites/$PROJ/$PROJ-`date +%Y-%m-%d --date="7 days ago"`.tar.gz
ln -sf ~/sites/$PROJ/$PROJ-$DATE.tar.gz ~/sites/$PROJ/$PROJ-latest.tar.gz
#git-fsck-objects --full

I'll save that broken dir away somewhere, and rerun the script
(which as you can see above will make it reclone from scratch).
If you want a copy of the .git of the broken tree I can put that up somewhere too.

Hmm, I just checked the mail cron sent out recently (sadly I don't
have an archive of older mails).  It does look a bit strange..

got 49be764e948668341034e121fad5cf07ab079bff
got 415c09ba10a391cec60c939da1722c83df7cd906
* refs/heads/origin: fast forward to branch 'master' of
  from 8a5dbef8ac24bc5a28409d646cf3ff6db0cccb3f to 38529e28a4f465ad5d5f2fa249ca17da680bac5f
Failed to fetch refs/heads/gb/diffdelta from

Interesting. It looks like my original clone was over http.
Another reason to reclone over git: I guess.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri Sep 15 05:36:27 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-09-15 05:37:04 EST