From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christoph Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `about-emacs' - what about the revno? Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:06:59 -0600 Message-ID: <4C795E53.9020108@gmail.com> References: <83occmlogo.fsf@gnu.org> 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 1283022536 10843 80.91.229.12 (28 Aug 2010 19:08:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:08:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , drew.adams@oracle.com To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 28 21:08:55 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 1OpQli-0007Z5-LJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:08:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56529 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OpQlf-0002ri-58 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:08:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57076 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OpQlZ-0002rK-7H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:08:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpQlX-0006SS-Lq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:08:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gw0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:51005) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpQlX-0006SM-JR; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:08:35 -0400 Original-Received: by gwj16 with SMTP id 16so2195571gwj.0 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:08:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lgOVnF+qpXtPuFit2kERq3gGohmcrgPrh9cynm7Wab0=; b=drvZOjUTRzOboWAQbuEBDR++Yb9nGeO2ie45u47iBJV3f6b1ZBJGIiduEWg10EKj+n DZG6e3hQIdZiGO2gO1cD9cjNhV4Po7T7qEQv3VunEmHbM0e2bb3PZ5XgtIZEGEAUdlxX 3aLu2laJuJAQVInBitqnqumsdYlf+KV0dA80w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Qo9oFSrNEpIxOU6aRt+eYON7C2Mbi+dDijmf/Jk4tmwEL2FCC2ymyQ4FyfybaPxkTz Svr0P3G552tpAxn5ltakAxBGzyqQtfHZbnU06xXVY1vGvv4eWDtAbUG35fQ/FJv0ygCX /3+OcW3u/xbSPupIwV/YvuWql7n8P84n7ef9Q= Original-Received: by 10.150.227.10 with SMTP id z10mr142907ybg.33.1283022425085; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.3] (97-122-115-147.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.115.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r41sm689873yba.12.2010.08.28.12.07.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:07:04 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 In-Reply-To: <83occmlogo.fsf@gnu.org> 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:129353 Archived-At: On 8/28/2010 9:57 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> If the "revno" is important info for identifying an Emacs build, then perhaps we >> should include it in such user-facing info. If not, then perhaps developers >> could refer in some other way (by date?) to the code that contains a given fix. > > This has come up before, but the discussion was inconclusive (IIRC) > because of 2 reasons: > > . revno is not unique: two different branches can have the same > revno for two very different code bases > > . revision-id, an alternative method of specifying a revision, _is_ > unique, but it's long and a mouthful: > > eliz@gnu.org-20100828152310-v42vqrt01k788siu > > In general, a bugfix should appear in the ChangeLog files with the bug > number, so you should be able to track bugfxes that way. I too think having the revision available somewhere would be helpful to identify the weekly snapshot builds. Just a date is too coarse in some cases, imho. The revno is indeed not unique globally, but if the branch is known, it is, right? So, why don't we supply to pieces of information: the revno and the name of the branch, e.g. the branch nick (available through bzr version-info). For Windows, we could implement another make target, e.g. make snapshot, which uses make dist (for building the binary distribution) but also inserts the revno and branch nick information somewhere. I am not sure how useful this information is for official releases, but if it is considered useful, we can just add this to make dist even. I like the combination of revno and branch name better than the revision-id. It seems easier to correlate these with the current state of the trunk using bzr log. Christoph