On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 09:35:38AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > > 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 I'm sorry, but I think this is bogus. For every one free software project that has a situation where the make multiple *significant* commits in a single calendar day, there are probably 100 which average less then a single commit per day or for which the last commit of the day is the most "significant". The case you mention, I believe, is by far the exception and not the rule. > 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. > I see your point. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature