On 7/1/19 11:30 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 07/01/2019 12:49, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> On 07/01/2019 12:39, Chris Johns wrote: >>>> On 7 Jan 2019, at 10:03 pm, Sebastian Huber >>>> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> The usage of a build date prevents reproducible builds. >>> -1 >>> >>> I prefer a build date being present. For unreleased it marks the online >>> builds and for releases it tags the day built. >> >> Adding the Git commit to the documents would be more useful. The build date >> is >> completely arbitrary. > > What do you think about replacing the date with a Git commit hash? I can try > to > do this. >
For branch builds this is OK and I am happy to see it added and for releases we also need to have the release details. Technically a hash is all that is needed so it is correct if you need to determined the exact source used but is this what people expect with documentation, ie is a date expected? The catalog holds the build date which is shown if you point a browser at the documentation. Our online page has this. If the users and community are OK with no date in the documentation then I am OK. I am still not sure how repeatable builds of docs can be made because of the dependence on so many other parts that can vary. I also do not know how you perform the comparison on a PDF. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
