Instead of setting version numbers manually (e.g. 0.1, 0.2) upon release time, with rolling releases every change (commit) pushed upstream results automatically in a new release and a version bump, with the version being a timestamp.  E.g. if I push 3 commits one day with some time between them this will result in 3 releases. I think it's a great approach for snapshot (devel) repos, but I'm not so sure about "stable" repos, as it kinda of implies that the author will never have their project in an inconsistent state (e.g. halfway towards a new feature). 

This approach was made popular by https://melpa.org/ 

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022, at 11:14 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > I have heard from people who prefer a rolling release model for their
>   > packages,
> 
> Can you explain what that means, concretely?  How is t different from
> what we do now?
> 
>               and requested that their packages not be added for {Non,}GNU
>   > ELPA if they would have to update the version header manually,
>   > presumably on every commit.
> 
> Is this something we would _want_ to do?  What would its implications
> be for Emacs?
> 
> We might decide to support their style of release, or decide not to
> include their packages in NonGNU ELPA, or we might come up with
> another solution.  I don't know what's best.  But I'm sure we should
> think about that before we decide.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
> Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
> Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
> 
> 
> 
>