On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 10:15 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > For packagers and developers of the software, the revision id portion is > usually what we want but (as tgl pointed out) the date still comes in handy > if upstream changes their SCM. I don't think it does, in practice. the 0.n part covers any such situation just fine. *any* time you build the package, you are supposed to increment n. I don't think it's possible for a situation to exist where a change in SCM would cause a problem for sorting. The SCM stuff is put behind the 0.n bit for precisely this reason. > For endusers, the date is more handy for seeing whether the package is based > on newer or older upstream versions than the scm's hash. That's why I suggested making the date _optional_. If the packager reckons it's useful information, they could still include it. My point is just that it's probably wrong nowadays to have the date as mandatory but the revision as optional, when the opposite would seem to make more sense. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
