On 09/10/2013 08:20 PM, Claudio Freire 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?
Nothing actually, whatever your SCM provides. I just used that example because it's the easiest thing you can get from git with tar_scm. In the git case, the format %ct doesn't contain spaces whereas %ci (and others) do.
Since you have the hash, you don't even need more than day precision, but if you really wanted, you can add up to seconds.
Being able to tell the release date from the version number without aid from a python console would be good, IMHO.
-- Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)