[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SVN snapshot versioning



On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:56:28 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:39:30AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Why bother with the date? 2.1~svn-r91 seems much more concise and
> > has the same information, really.
>
> Though you're right that the information is the same, a date is
> meaningful in spite of the knowledge of the revision control system
> (subversion in this case). The same can't be said for the SVN revision
> number.

As commented elsewhere, normal release numbers do not have any date
component and you've still got the problem that multiple svn commits
are frequently made on the same day. The date, in this context, is just
misleading and would need to be a full UTC timestamp to have any real
meaning. The revision number is far more precise and just like a normal
1:2.3.4-5 release string, you would need to refer to the upstream
website(s) to determine the date of the release. The advantage of just
using the svn 'r' number is that it makes this information available
precisely and without duplication. Looking up that 'r' number not only
tells you the date - just as looking up a normal release string would
do - it also uniquely identifies the point at which the upstream code
was packaged - again, just as a release string is intended to do.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpphVZ8q73XC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: