From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Tyser Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:03:06 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH][RFC] Update U-Boot's build timestamp on every compile In-Reply-To: <2acbd3e40810211152q150501b7t5e001b875279d1f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <1224283881-24626-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com> <20081020195934.562c110c.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <1224554522.11401.28.camel@ptyser-laptop> <20081021070439.612E9832E40A@gemini.denx.de> <1224600029.18428.339.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081021145907.10097835694E@gemini.denx.de> <2acbd3e40810211152q150501b7t5e001b875279d1f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1224615786.18428.389.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Andy, > I don't think he's wanting this as much for releases (which would be > fine with the git id as you mentioned), but during the development > process. It is very useful during development to have a timestamp > which confirms that what you are running now is what you expect. > There are various ways I have used this: > > * Catch that I failed to copy the new image to my tftp directory > * Confirm that I'm booting from the flash bank I just programmed > * Helpful for figuring out which of the files in my tftp directory > corresponds to what's running 100% agree - all our releases are generated from fully-committed git trees with tags. This patch only intends to improve development. > Also, while I can see good arguments for not having a time stamp, > having one that is not up-to-date seems totally useless. The stamp > might not be updated for months, and thus provides only an indicator > as to when the date was last updated. > > Upshot: I endorse this patch's concept, and urge Peter to put in his > (apparently underpaid) time to complete it. :) I'll submit a patch shortly. I'll also mention the underpaid comment to management and see what comes of that;) Peter