Lele Gaifax <lele@seldati.it> writes:
> What about using a "virtual" fourth value that defaults to the
> revision number? This, btw, augment the information kept in the
> version number, and should solve the ambiguity noted by Karl. I gives
> both the user and developer point of view of the sources in one shot.
Neat idea, though in extreme cases it's possible for a release not to
even correspond to any single tree under a revision. But still, in
general they *do* correspond to some revision, and probably always
will.
Nevertheless... I think it would be kind of weird. I mean, the
revision numbers are moving along a whole different parallel axis.
They'd always be increasing; and it's a lot of digits to have in the
shorthand release number. And after all, the revision number is
available in the dist's name, and posts here have proven that people
are aware of it and include it in their reports.
Dunno. I guess I'd like to try the more conventional solution first
and see if that works out.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 1 07:00:36 2002