Yamaban (foerster@lisas.de) wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:43, Adam Spiers <aspiers@...> wrote:
Claudio Freire (klaussfreire@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Sascha Peilicke <speilicke@suse.com> wrote:
5) X+git.1363873583.8dfab15
Albeit you can discuss the format differences, 2) and 3) are much better than 1) since they at least broadly state when the SCM snapshot was taken. 4) Does a better job by providing the commit number/hash but breaks RPM upgradeability. Random commit hashes aren't upgradeable right? So the best version is indeed number 5), where the first number is the commit date and the second one is the commit hash. The date assures upgradability, because it increments always linearly and the commit hash provides for reproducability.
Is that a unix timestamp?
IMHO, that's horribly unreadable for any human. What's wrong with ISO?
ISO contains hyphens, which is incompatible with rpm versions.
I'd prefer something a little different than 5.), let's call it 6.
6.) X+{date}.{scm}{commit} with: {date} as %Y%m%d = YYYYmmdd followed by (dot), {scm} as one of {git,svn,bzr,hg,cvs,...}, and {commit} as scm-specific commit tag / hash / whatever
Pro: readability, sortability (at least days work for sure)
It's not good enough to be sortable to the resolution of one day. Yes, people do actually built multiple versions per day sometimes, and build bots do even more regularly.
Contra: can be long
Right. Personally I like the timestamp legibility and the length doesn't bother me, but it seems to bother one or two others at least. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org