Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569955 --- Comment #9 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-30 14:13:05 EDT --- One correction to what I wrote earlier -- Thomas is correct that we still want release to include ${DATE}svn${REV} rather than simply ${REV}. This was chosen to be meaningful in case upstream switches version control systems. Here's an example: 0.7.917557 # first svn snapshot 0.7.987654 # second svn snapshot 0.7.87AF2E # first git snapshot 0.7.76FAE2 # second git snapshot If we just move the revision string into release, the numbers have meaning to developers who are used to working with revision control but do not have meaning to end users. An enduser can't tell whether 0.7-1.87AF2E is more recent than 0.7-2.76FAE2 or if it contains fixes that they found in a ChangeLog that says the feature was added in March, 2010. Having the date gives them a bit more information: 0.7-1.20100101svn917557 0.7-2.20100102svn987654 0.7-3.20100201git87AF2E 0.7-4.20100301git76FAE2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review