On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 09:56 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli 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. Also, in the (rare but can occur) event of a svn rollback, r91 is not necessarily accurate after the fact,whereas a datestamp is. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part