Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Version numbering of develop branch #671

Closed
Svdvoort opened this issue Jun 27, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #684
Closed

Version numbering of develop branch #671

Svdvoort opened this issue Jun 27, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #684
Milestone

Comments

@Svdvoort
Copy link

Currently when compiling the code from the develop branch the version number of Elastix is still "5.0.1".
This can be a bit confusing, especially when multiple instances of Elastix have been compiled and it is unclear which one is the actual stable "5.0.1" or which one is just the latest development version (and which version that is).

Would it be possible to set the version number as something like "dev", or once a stable release has taken place to create a new temporary version number (like ITK)? The most favorable would be to use the GitHub hash of a commit for the version number, so it is instantly clear which exact version of the code has been used.

In regards to this, is there a stable release coming up soon? The 5.0.1 release is quite old, and there have definitely been a lot of improvements in the development branch. Especially for publications, it is nice to be able to use a stable release version number.

@N-Dekker
Copy link
Member

N-Dekker commented Jul 4, 2022

Thank you for submitting the issue, Sebastian. Our plan is to make a new stable release soon after the final release of ITK 5.3. I like your suggestion to use the GitHub hash, but have to check if it's feasible to implement. If so, would it be helpful to you to just have it displayed at the command-line, by elastix --extended-version ?

@N-Dekker N-Dekker added this to the IssueSprint milestone Jul 4, 2022
N-Dekker added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 8, 2022
With this commit, the output of `elastix.exe --extended-version` will look something like this:

    elastix version: 5.0.1
    Git revision SHA: 81eb3b3
    Git revision date: Fri Jul 8 11:46:04 2022 +0200
    Build date: Jul  8 2022 15:15:40
    Compiler: Visual C++ version 192930145.0
    Memory address size: 64-bit
    CMake version: 3.23.1
    ITK version: 5.3.0

Triggered by issue #671 "Version numbering of develop branch", submitted by Sebastian van der Voort.
N-Dekker added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 10, 2022
With this commit, the output of `elastix.exe --extended-version` will look something like this:

    elastix version: 5.0.1
    Git revision SHA: 81eb3b3
    Git revision date: Fri Jul 8 11:46:04 2022 +0200
    Build date: Jul  8 2022 15:15:40
    Compiler: Visual C++ version 192930145.0
    Memory address size: 64-bit
    CMake version: 3.23.1
    ITK version: 5.3.0

Triggered by issue #671 "Version numbering of develop branch", submitted by Sebastian van der Voort.
N-Dekker added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 10, 2022
Addressed issue #671 "Version numbering of develop branch", submitted by Sebastian van der Voort.
N-Dekker added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 10, 2022
Addressed issue #671 "Version numbering of develop branch", submitted by Sebastian van der Voort.
N-Dekker added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2022
With this commit, the output of `elastix.exe --extended-version` will look something like this:

    elastix version: 5.0.1
    Git revision SHA: 81eb3b3
    Git revision date: Fri Jul 8 11:46:04 2022 +0200
    Build date: Jul  8 2022 15:15:40
    Compiler: Visual C++ version 192930145.0
    Memory address size: 64-bit
    CMake version: 3.23.1
    ITK version: 5.3.0

Triggered by issue #671 "Version numbering of develop branch", submitted by Sebastian van der Voort.
N-Dekker added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 11, 2022
Addressed issue #671 "Version numbering of develop branch", submitted by Sebastian van der Voort.
@Svdvoort
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the implementation, the pull request looks great!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants