From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Setting the value of `emacs-bzr-version' also from a git checkout Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:04:29 +0200 Message-ID: <871u3qgvk2.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <87a9is6g2a.fsf@igel.home> <87pprokewg.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83iox2rd75.fsf@gnu.org> <87bo2uhie3.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1381605324 3579 80.91.229.3 (12 Oct 2013 19:15:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:15:24 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 12 21:15:28 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VV4eq-000696-DQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:15:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59121 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VV4ep-0006nD-Vc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 15:15:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47941) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VV4eg-0006ia-Tl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 15:15:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VV4eX-0007RN-Ek for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 15:15:14 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:35862) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VV4eX-0007Oz-7i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 15:15:05 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VV4UR-0007UB-FB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:04:39 +0200 Original-Received: from 35.red-83-36-170.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.36.170.35]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:04:39 +0200 Original-Received: from ofv by 35.red-83-36-170.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:04:39 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 33 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 35.red-83-36-170.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:THkixfYEd0VAdAp7AFiOMZYbths= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:164154 Archived-At: Dani Moncayo writes: >> Why is the *user* interested on getting the revno? For bug reporting, >> the revid is perfectly valid (and, as stated before, it is more precise >> than the revno.) > > (I think I didn't answer to your question in my previous reply. Sorry.) > > Many people prefer to use revnos while reporting bugs or discussing > changes (this mailing list is the clearest example). > > I was even asked to include that revnos in the binaries I publish, see: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/2013-10/msg00002.html > > So, even though the bzr revision IDs are unambiguous, (most) humans > prefer to use the revision numbers. That's because they don't understand the implications. The usefulness of including version info on bug reports (something that IIRC is done automatically, so there is no need to show the info on screenshots, etc) is to pinpoint the sources used for the build. It is self-defeating to use ambiguous info just because it seems more human-friendly, when the non-ambiguous info makes no difference on terms of report write effort nor on report read effort (it is easy to write a command that reads the revid at point and shows the corresponding commit message and/or diff.) Speaking of user's behavior, if I still were using bzr for my personal branch of Emacs any bug report would include a revno that is wrong from the POV of the developers, but they would not notice. Ditto for my personal git branch (if your modification is accepted.) And, of course, it is true for anyone using some of the experimental branches that share the version number with a "major" branch (i.e. 24.3.50.1)