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.
Since you have the hash, you don't even need more than day precision,
Incorrect - it's there for sorting to ensure libzypp knows which package is newer.
Being able to tell the release date from the version number without aid from a python console would be good, IMHO.
I agree, but that would make it even longer, and people are already complaining about the length. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org