Add git rev to local version identifier

[toddstrader]

Adds the Git rev to the local version label. There's a chicken-and-egg problem wrt PR numbers and creating news fragments. I'll add that next. Also, should I add a test for this? I guess I could check that the + exists and there's something git rev-like if it's a dev version?

closes #3562

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (40a27c2) 66.68% compared to head (1baf999) 67.53%.
Report is 9 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3568      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   66.68%   67.53%   +0.85%     
==========================================
  Files          48       47       -1     
  Lines        8491     8514      +23     
  Branches     2413     2423      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits         5662     5750      +88     
+ Misses       1696     1632      -64     
+ Partials     1133     1132       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[marlonjames]

I wonder why Python 3.6 doesn't work.

https://github.com/cocotb/cocotb/actions/runs/7143704333/job/19455778417?pr=3568#step:23:65

[toddstrader]

I wonder why Python 3.6 doesn't work.

https://github.com/cocotb/cocotb/actions/runs/7143704333/job/19455778417?pr=3568#step:23:65

Huh, dunno yet. But I guess that answers my question about needing a test.

[toddstrader]

3.6 was failing because text was too new for subprocess:

Changed in version 3.7: Added the text parameter, as a more understandable alias of universal_newlines. Added the capture_output parameter.

I confirmed that the new test caught this issue and then resolved it.

[toddstrader]

Also additional confirmation that things are working in 3.6 now:
https://github.com/cocotb/cocotb/actions/runs/7145071037/job/19459990612?pr=3568#step:23:65

[ktbarrett]

Gentle reminder on the ready for review.

[toddstrader]

Gentle reminder on the ready for review.

I respond well to loud yelling.

[ktbarrett]

GOOD JOB, YOU DID IT!@

[ktbarrett]

Reading deeper into PEP 440:

https://peps.python.org/pep-0440/#final-releases

When comparing release segments with different numbers of components, the shorter segment is padded out with additional zeros as necessary.

I read this as meaning 2.0.0.dev0 and 2.0.dev0 are the same. If this is a point of contention, I'm willing to concede.

[marlonjames]

I don't really care 2.0 vs 2.0.0, I think it was probably to match the 3 levels we have used since 1.2.0.

[toddstrader]

OK, so what's the verdict? Back to 2.0.0?

[ktbarrett]

Yeah, sorry.

[imphil]

Thanks for your pull request, @toddstrader.

There's a chicken-and-egg problem wrt PR numbers and creating news fragments.

You can use the issue number instead of the PR number for the newsfragment.