20

I just saw that site revision is 1.0.0.0

rev

Someone just dropped it to default state, or there is integer overflow?

  • Could it be the first version of the new design? – TheWanderer Apr 22 at 12:07
  • @TheWanderer which one is new? – αλεχολυτ Apr 22 at 12:08
  • the whole responsive design that's been such a big deal. – TheWanderer Apr 22 at 12:08
  • 11
    We woke up this morning and thought "ya know what? I think we finally nailed it y'all - let's call it 1.0" – Nick Craver Apr 22 at 12:37
  • 1
    @NickCraver Let's not forget about your tweets – Sonic the Bracketed Hedgehog Apr 22 at 13:01
  • 3
    Those are just nasty rumors – Nick Craver Apr 22 at 13:02
  • @NickCraver Also, the tag wiki for svn-revision says it's about the revision number at the bottom. If that's not correct, please rename/merge the tag. – Sonic the Bracketed Hedgehog Apr 22 at 13:04
  • @Nick Can you finally remove the attribution required link if you're updating that part of the code/templates? – curiousdannii Apr 22 at 13:51
  • @curiousdannii I'm not touching any of that - the issue is miles away from the views. – Nick Craver Apr 22 at 13:52
  • @Sonic what makes you think it's not correct? – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard Apr 22 at 13:59
  • @ShadowWizard The tweet right after the one I linked. – Sonic the Bracketed Hedgehog Apr 22 at 14:34
  • Why would we remove the "attribution required" link, @curiousdannii? – Cody Gray Apr 23 at 18:45
  • @Cody because it's against the terms of the CC license, and because the staff have already said they're intending to. – curiousdannii Apr 23 at 22:06
  • @curiousdannii What? How is "attribution required" "against the terms of the CC license"? The CC BY-SA license explicitly requires attribution. – Cody Gray Apr 23 at 22:10
  • @Cody See here. It's the contents of the blog post that are the problem. The CC BY-SA license does not let you dictate specific ways in which attribution is to be given. – curiousdannii Apr 23 at 22:17
17

This now fixed. It may be silly, but I bet others hit it so...details! TL;DR: a code move in our .NET Core migration read AssemblyVersion from an assembly that was set (via AssemblyInfo.cs during a build) to one that wasn't (an SDK project which doesn't have that stuff).

I figure it's best to just literally paste my commit message here:

When we moved assembly versioning down to StackOverflow.Common, the footer went back to 1.0.0.0. This happened because our build replaces the versioning in AssemblyInfo.cs which doesn't exist anymore in .NET Core. We need to instead replace it as <Version>...</Version> in the .csproj. We may change to git versioning here later, but this maintains the date version for the moment (e.g. in the footer).

This change is paired with a "File content replacer" feature on the TC builds to do the actual replacement. Again: this gets us back to working...but we should replace how all this works with built-in git versioning and a date feed from elsewhere if we want to maintain that in the footer.

This fixes: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/327167/whats-going-on-with-revision-number

Note: locking the build replacement down to StackOverflow.Common.csproj since it replaces the <Version> element which catches this in StackSnippets.csproj:

<PackageReference Include="System.ValueTuple">
  <Version>4.5.0</Version>
</PackageReference>

While this should be:

<PackageReference Include="System.ValueTuple" Version="4.5.0" />

...the tooling does that and the problem will just occur again. So let's just side-step most of the noise of such things by locking it down.

Setup in TeamCity:

Path pattern: "**/StackOverflow.Common.csproj"
File encoding: UTF-8
Search for: (?-m)(<Version>)(.*)(<\/Version>)
Match case: true
Regex: true
Replace with: $1%system.build.start.year%.%system.build.start.month%.%system.build.start.day%.%system.build.number%$3

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .