Use git to retrieve version instead of manually change PREMAKE_VERSION.

[Jarod42]

What does this PR do?

Handle PREMAKE_VERSION from git tag

How does this PR change Premake's behavior?

No behavior changed.

Anything else we should know?

gitintegration setup, so premake5 is launched at each checkout.

Did you check all the boxes?

• Focus on a single fix or feature; remove any unrelated formatting or code changes
• Add unit tests showing fix or feature works; all tests pass
• Mention any related issues (put closes #XXXX in comment to auto-close issue when PR is merged)
• Follow our coding conventions
• Minimize the number of commits
• Align documentation to your changes

[tritao]

Is this debug print and should it be removed?

[Jarod42]

I see it more as information than debugging.

[tritao]

Overall looks good and great improvement over the current way of handling the version string.

But long-term (maybe as future PR) I think it makes sense to provide a core API for this task (generating a config file), which is a pretty common requirement for many projects.

We can take a look at inspiration from CMake's configure_file.

[Jarod42]

We can take a look at inspiration from CMake's configure_file.

A simple function taking "template_path", "output_path" and a table for mapping seems sufficient.
Just turn that function more generic and with proper naming.

But outside scope of that PR IMO.

[samsinsane]

As previously discussed, I'm not a fan of this approach. Here are some of my issues:

1. It always executes on checkout, this is unnecessary in my opinion. The only time we truly care about the version is when someone is using a tagged build.
2. It changes PREMAKE_VERSION to be a different format. 5.0.0-beta3 -> v5.0.0-beta3 and 5.0.0-dev to <latest tag>-<num-commits-ahead>-g<hash>. The desire to automate was to avoid the dev->beta3->dev churn, this churn exists to avoid having builds say they're a specific tag when they're not.
3. The git archive header doesn't seem to work on a master archive. On my machine I get beta1 even though I have beta4 in my repo.
4. It relies on __has_include otherwise the version is "UNKNOWN" - using Lua to determine the version and only using a single header would work so much better than relying on C23 features to be available.
5. If __has_include exists, but premake_git_version.h isn't generated for some reason, then premake_archive_version.h will always be pulled in instead, which for Git-based builds will always set the version to "$Format:%(describe)$". This needs to be handled better so that useful information is stored in the version.

[Jarod42]

1. yes, executed at each checkout
2. I didn't spot the extra prefix "v", but indeed noticed that "dev" version is more (too?) precise.
3. lightweight tag versus annotated tag and also tags outside of main branch (only parent1 is used).That should be fixed on the way to tag version.
   4.5. We might get rid of __has_include and replace the check by the result of the generation to set some #define

I don't see a way to "fix" 1. and 2.
We can fix 3. with proper tag.
I might fix 4.5, but if 1.2. are blocking, the fix of 4.5. is useless. So feel free to close the PR in that case.

Just noticed that "script/package.lua" would be broken too with that change (and can/should be fixed).

[Jarod42]

1. gitintegration removed
2. Changed to use only exact tag, or file from source-package, and default to 5.0.0-dev
3. lightweight tags are no longer ignored.
4. 5. __has_include removed, and use defines instead

[nickclark2016]

@Jarod42 have you tested this out locally to ensure the variable is set correctly with tags? And can you post the output here if the current commit is the tagged commit vs an untagged commit?

[Jarod42]

From https://github.com/premake/premake-core/actions/runs/14019395362/job/39249271176

Current git tag: nil

Which is an untagged version

Locally, with custom tag

MINGW64 ~/Code/premake/premake-core (premake_version)
$ git describe --tag --exact-match
vtestversion

MINGW64 ~/Code/premake/premake-core (premake_version)
$ ../premake5 vs2022 --cc=clang
Code::Blocks module loaded.
Current git tag:        testversion
Building configurations...
Running action 'vs2022'...
Done (2342ms).

(there was indeed a typo for substring to remove prefix "v")