Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?

["Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>]

Joshua Judson Rosen <rozzin@geekspace.com>:
> > I think the correct reference is 111964.1.6.  It was merged in
> > r112051.
> 
> ... and the "revno:111954.1.97" was a reference to trunk revno:112051.
> 
> The fact that the commit whose comment is making that reference is itself
> from a non-mainline branch suggests that the reference may actually
> not be garbled, but rather be from an obsolete context.
> 
> The "111954.1.97" revno is actually correct relative to the "111954.1.4"
> commit and Handa's "work branch" (where it would have been 111954+4=11958;
> if you do "bzr branch trunk -r 111954.1.4 handa-work" and then do
> "bzr log -r 111954.1.97 --show-ids handa-work", this starts to become clear).

Oh, crap.  Now I'm confused about what to replace that revno with.  The
alternatives are:

111964.1.6	2013-03-15T16:03:54Z!handa@gnu.org
112051   	2013-03-15T16:06:12Z!handa@gnu.org

It's only a difference in timestamp.  Do they have the same content?
If not, serious can of worms.  If so, the qustion of which timestamp
to consider authoritative becomes more philosophical.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>