From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: `about-emacs' - what about the revno? Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:05:54 -0700 Message-ID: <6990DAECA86643A4B7C805869A145E52@us.oracle.com> References: <83occmlogo.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283011780 5290 80.91.229.12 (28 Aug 2010 16:09:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 28 18:09:38 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 1OpNyJ-0001It-79 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:09:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50030 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OpNyF-0004Ob-BV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:09:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42727 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OpNwV-0003oW-EO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:07:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpNwR-0000w8-GW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:07:41 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:22700) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpNwR-0000w3-AK; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:07:39 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o7SG7aX7005746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:07:38 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o7SFbCXw000344; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:07:36 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt003.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 557119621283011552; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:05:52 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.221.84) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:05:52 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83occmlogo.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: ActGyZJ5Jv16t1XpQRSOXP5CH2sWngAAJ6DA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:129343 Archived-At: > > 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. OK, thanks. 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.