From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEjDtmZsaW5n?= <bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de>
Subject: Re: Better names for Guix versions from git?
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:52:08 +0100
Message-ID: <20181230005208.4e159c02@alma-ubu>
References: <87lg4dwfmt.fsf@gmail.com>
	<351d14fe-0edd-6575-939d-981598b65255@riseup.net>
	<87k1jw8jyp.fsf@fastmail.com>
	<CAJuFOK4=5kHmL+4NZqW--t5-RpN9Ddzx0w97PmgY3xpo-YfU9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1295C96F-04B7-4A8F-99E9-2C6C6C1D9061@pretty.Easy.privacy>
	<87h8ewhrrw.fsf@elephly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	boundary="Sig_/9ADG5RMAVsUWBxoBL+M7Hwu";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47430)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de>)
	id 1gdObK-0003NF-BA
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:05:09 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de>)
	id 1gdOOy-0003s6-5H
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 18:52:27 -0500
Received: from m4s11.vlinux.de ([83.151.27.109]:51556 helo=bjoernhoefling.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de>)
	id 1gdOOs-0003k9-Nw
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 18:52:16 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87h8ewhrrw.fsf@elephly.net>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" <guix-devel@gnu.org>

--Sig_/9ADG5RMAVsUWBxoBL+M7Hwu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:50:11 +0100
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> swedebugia <swedebugia@riseup.net> writes:
>=20
> > "Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling" <bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de> skrev: (29
> > december 2018 12:53:04 CET) =20
> >>On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:30:11 +0100
> >>Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> =20
> >>> I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they
> >>> immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can
> >>> certainly live with that format too. Definitely better than what
> >>> we have. =20
> >>
> >>I also would prefer a string containing the date.
> >>
> >>Bj=C3=B6rn =20
> >
> > +1. Maybe we could do both, first the date then the commits then
> > the hash? =20
>=20
> Including a date would require more effort, because this format is not
> supported by git, as far as I know.
>=20
> Support for the output of =E2=80=9Cgit describe=E2=80=9D would likely be =
much easier
> to implement, but note that this might require missing features to be
> implemented in guile-git.

If that is easier to implement, sure.

Bj=C3=B6rn


--Sig_/9ADG5RMAVsUWBxoBL+M7Hwu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlwoCKkACgkQvyhstlk+X/3ngQCgjmmazy1f8mr/FaHkKrmfL1p+
EewAnjw6ER5IUX4cAdTbIv4MNFsDcJGG
=aV/h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/9ADG5RMAVsUWBxoBL+M7Hwu--