Fix build error when fetching git hash

[sunchao]

When the parquet-rs crate is used in a third-party library, the "git"
command in the build.rs will fail. This fixes it by skipping the git
hash and just use "parquet-rs version " as the CREATED_BY
string. This should be OK since a crate version should always map to
a unique git hash.

Fixes #170

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 636

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 95.535%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 634:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	12409
Relevant Lines:	12989

---

💛 - Coveralls

[sadikovi]

Thanks for fixing the problem. I should have accounted for it.

We can merge this PR and patch the code ASAP, but this was done to make parquet version available in the code, which has a format "parquet x.y.z (build ###)". I suggest we merge the PR and I will work on how we update version in the follow-up.

[sadikovi]

One of the ways of fixing it is having a script that updates the hardcodes the version during the release process.

[sunchao]

Sure @sadikovi . Thanks.

One of the ways of fixing it is having a script that updates the hardcodes the version during the release process.

What's the issue with the current approach? we are getting the version from CARGO_PKG_VERSION. Is that not the right approach?

[sadikovi]

Hello. You are correct - it is the right approach, but parquet version is generally “parquet x.y.z (build abc123)”. Having just the version is correct, though it is not full version, and there could be code written in other processing engine that relies on it. Your fix is fast and on point, thank you for fixing it. But long term we should add something that injects full version of parquet - I will try coming up with the least painful for development and release approach.

[sunchao]

I see. You mean we should still keep the (build abc123) part for compatibility reason, right? That makes sense. Thanks!

[sadikovi]

It is not necessary, but this is what cpp and mr do. We will fix it later.

…

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 10:07 AM, Chao Sun ***@***.***> wrote: I see. You mean we should still keep the (build abc123) part for compatibility reason, right? That makes sense. Thanks! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#171 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHbY3q80hM5XZZnnrSCkj3sk82igNt_Yks5ujvwpgaJpZM4XWn3h> .

[sunchao]

@sadikovi : I'm going to release 0.4.1 with this fix. After you have a more complete fix we can do another minor release. Is that OK?

[sadikovi]

All good, thanks.