From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason Rumney Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `about-emacs' - what about the revno? Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:34:11 +0800 Message-ID: <4C793A83.2010904@gnu.org> References: <83occmlogo.fsf@gnu.org> <6990DAECA86643A4B7C805869A145E52@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283014396 14965 80.91.229.12 (28 Aug 2010 16:53:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:53:16 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 28 18:53:15 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpOeZ-0006GW-HT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:53:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47002 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OpOeY-0000B2-RV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:53:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43521 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OpOeO-0008FD-9X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:53:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpOOI-0006Ke-5H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:36:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:38879) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpOOH-0006KR-RY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:36:26 -0400 Original-Received: by pwj6 with SMTP id 6so2551421pwj.0 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:36:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G2LnpazQOK2sM3shofxxpAUhpzEjPNTeU4ucG7OqUlQ=; b=GZj760YYN/0FZd5zyUd+tueGAwX0eg57ksZE1d8L4QQoDhRlaWa5u4LAtj/+0Y3FTG W/lXnlt/7hGcXfKteCp7mQMmG1Dvm16+uHhAUQQsAC7vxDFjm/fxgpNWLaJ/1+8+S1GC 8a5UKpD7tCavKxmIF5iJ75DahJyseOIUgiiKc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=x/RtwwoIErrg+bRFWnYQvkKSUdwlVwvPzl7slP+yyZFJ/rOLVOdBd9Iz2bOVNT5xeQ fnlBtW4TE6qHEpOSZsD7JtZuwBR8q7b+Yg+Ea54dH5iU63bHyy4/SN8wHjZYRJzWwqd2 GdUeIZPqR4/KFHXodKMSqfI+p9HH5HdhYJSr4= Original-Received: by 10.142.218.20 with SMTP id q20mr2564317wfg.181.1283013267110; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.249.100] ([202.87.221.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k23sm5213021wfa.5.2010.08.28.09.34.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:34:26 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 In-Reply-To: <6990DAECA86643A4B7C805869A145E52@us.oracle.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:129346 Archived-At: On 29/8/2010 12:05 AM, Drew Adams wrote: >>> If not, then perhaps developers could refer in some other >>> way (by date?) to the code that contains a given fix. >> > But please see the "If not..." part above. I am interested in knowing which > upcoming Windows binary will have a particular fix (e.g. identified by "revno > 101110"). When communicating with bug-report filers, a date is perhaps more > useful than just a revno (and users should not need to dig into change logs). > Some users might be able to do something with a revno, but a date should be of > some help to any user. Perhaps you could use the date that the email was sent?